Circumcision: can any rational thinker defend it ? [Archive] - Page 8

fls

26th August 2007, 03:35 AM

1. Ok, so I can stab you, and you wouldnt care. Good.

Didn't I say that the first time you asked?

2. Authority over decisions = origin of ideals?

No. You seem to have misunderstood which idea I was talking about the origin of.

3. Not cutting parts off your baby's genitals?

The idea that we forego all substituted decisions until the baby is old enough to consent is extremely harmful and I cannot agree. I doubt any parent could stand by and do nothing to promote the health and life of their child simply because the child can't decide for himself.

If you are proposing that we forego some substituted decisions, what is your test to figure out which ones?

4. No, but there is a set of rights, seeing as we live in a some sort of society which has a set of rules.

Yes.

5. The parent should have primary interest over the child yes. Why do you want that to extend to permanent modifications to genitals for no benefit that cant be gained by doing the procedure later, other than the supposed UTI benefit.

That is the wrong question. The question is rather, what actions should be excluded?

Should I, being the parent, be able to tattoo my baby? Or do some other branding action? Why is circumcision different? Why can I cut his penis, but not her clitoris?

The test is what is considered acceptable by the society in which you live (and "society" is defined by the circumstances). In the US, you can dress your children in ugly clothes, pierce their ears, teach them to speak Mandarin, but cutting off the glans of the penis clearly is on the other side of the line (and, of course, the whole point of this discussion is where to draw this line). Realistically, the line is not influenced just by reason, but also by history/culture/habit.

6. Without good reason... Give me a good reason.

I previously specified this here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2719334#post2719334).

Also, you sub divided this response for no discernible reason. Id say violating a baby's right to bodily integrity is a good reason, a baby IS a person.

I just wanted to be able to be specific that there are several steps to the process. Your responses would seem to indicate that you have yet to understand this.

Let me branch for a moment, I disagree with docking dog's ears, but its a dog, it is effectively property, is a human property in the same way?

Clearly the answer is no, which makes it a mystery as to why you introduced this straw man.

7. You think it should apply to everyone, with the exclusion of infants, gotcha. Infants not being a part of everyone.

This kind of response supports the assertion that your thinking is of the type exhibited by those on Joe's list.

Linda

fls

26th August 2007, 04:09 AM

Just because it's the sort of issue that inspires some of the people arguing about it to get emotional doesn't mean it's a nonissue if you're not plumb crazy.

That's not what Joe was saying, though.

I know it's just another anecdote...

I snipped the rest so as not to offend those who found it TMI (;)), but I think this example supports my idea.

I think the relatively high circumcision rates in the US are the result mostly of social conformity and parents not putting much thought into the decision. Right now, the anti-circumcision crowd has the appearance of a fringe group, and their words are easily dismissed by the average person. For example, the assertion that circumcision is detrimental to sexual function doesn't make sense to the average couple whose experience is otherwise. However, it does make sense to Lithrael because she is in the unusual position of her experience confirming the idea. I suspect that she wouldn't have put much thought into the issue if sex wasn't different between the two?

It looks like the opinions of those in this thread follow from my idea - that they are shaped by social conformity (those from outside the US where it is not the norm are not in favour) and the direction of their personal experience with regard to sexual function (or as a scapegoat for interpersonal interactions). There are exceptions - I think KellyB is one, although I'd have to refresh my memory on that.

I think that the rates are more likely to change if parents put more thought into it, and if the uncircumcised state is seen as conforming. I suspect that ranting and using extreme language has the opposite effect - that parents shut out what is being said and that the speakers are seen as radical. I am open to arguments on either side.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

26th August 2007, 05:14 AM

<snip>

I think that the rates are more likely to change if parents put more thought into it, and if the uncircumcised state is seen as conforming. I suspect that ranting and using extreme language has the opposite effect - that parents shut out what is being said and that the speakers are seen as radical. I am open to arguments on either side.

Linda

I think the reason that so many US parents still have their children circumcised is because physicians still give the procedure tacit approval. The medical profession introduced this bizarre idea to the US public and the medical profession should stop it.

What physicians should be saying to parents enquiring about non-therapeutic circumcision is that it is cruel, painful and waste of money and time, though they do turn a nice profit from doing them.

What does a physician think about when they are hurting a baby for no medical reason? The money?

DiskoVilante

26th August 2007, 07:31 AM

There is one reason I know of that would "defend" circumcision. If the foreskin of the penis does not retract correctly (or at all) then circumcision is a way of fixing this.

Koshy

26th August 2007, 08:10 AM

Didn't I say that the first time you asked?

No. You seem to have misunderstood which idea I was talking about the origin of.

The idea that we forego all substituted decisions until the baby is old enough to consent is extremely harmful and I cannot agree. I doubt any parent could stand by and do nothing to promote the health and life of their child simply because the child can't decide for himself.

If you are proposing that we forego some substituted decisions, what is your test to figure out which ones?

That is the wrong question. The question is rather, what actions should be excluded?

The test is what is considered acceptable by the society in which you live (and "society" is defined by the circumstances). In the US, you can dress your children in ugly clothes, pierce their ears, teach them to speak Mandarin, but cutting off the glans of the penis clearly is on the other side of the line (and, of course, the whole point of this discussion is where to draw this line). Realistically, the line is not influenced just by reason, but also by history/culture/habit.

I previously specified this here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2719334#post2719334).

I just wanted to be able to be specific that there are several steps to the process. Your responses would seem to indicate that you have yet to understand this.

Clearly the answer is no, which makes it a mystery as to why you introduced this straw man.

This kind of response supports the assertion that your thinking is of the type exhibited by those on Joe's list.

Linda

Honestly Linda, Im not trying to be offensive to you, Im having trouble understanding however how youre phrasing your responses.

For isntance, you say that self determination is something that everyone should have yes? You exclude male infant from that though. Such that, yes, they have self determination, but that the parent can override it for little to no reason.

And no no no no, that wasnt what I said. Not cutting off a part of your baby's genitals does not equate to throwing away all parental right to decide anything for them.

And alright then. Lets understand where the line is drawn. As I understand it the line is pretty arbitrary. Cutting off the glans is "over the line" as you say, but why is it? I assume if some religion came around saying that it was tradition that we would just flat out deny them the right to do it. Why though would we? Why is that appalling, but the other not? The same for other issues, dropping bombs on people, vs people exploding themselves as bombs, the effect is pretty much the same Id imagine, but one is far more appalling.

What sort of test would you propose for deciding what decisions are over the line? I would say that, to address the issue specifically, that the cutting of infant's genitals for non medically indicated reasons should be prohibited by law, of course you could take a much more broad approach to it, but its harder to write a proposed law system that applies to a large body of situations vs a small body.

The reason that used the dog example. I am asking whether children are property. Is a child owned in the same way that a dog is owned, and thus, you can do most anything you want to with it? I would argue that while the practice of docking dog's ears isnt something I support, its being conducted on an animal, which I would think most here agree with, is intrinsically of lower "value" than a human, so the process is being conducted on something that has no real ability to think of its own destiny at the time of the docking or later.

Lets transport the issue, as it pertains to drawing the line, and stick with the ear docking example. Would it be acceptable to dock the ears of an infant, who is incapable of consent or understanding of the procedure? Would it be acceptable to dock the ears of an adult who incapable of consent? What if, as is the typical argument, the adult felt neutrally about it, but still didnt decide it for himself, such that I could just walk up and snip his ear off and he doesnt really care.

(This doesnt directly pertain, however. I will admit that I have a bias for the protection of children. We are discussing now the ethics concerned in determining a line of acceptability vs the direct morality of it, so dont say that admittance of a bias is somehow crushing to my argument.
But yes. Nothing gets me more up in arms than hearing about child abuse, neglectful parents, false parents, any of the myriad of sexual cases that can be heard about on the news, etc. I feel that because children are incapable of "proper"(which is a discussion into itself) decisions they should be afforded MORE protection, not less. Ill end that for now.)

DRBUZZ0

26th August 2007, 08:36 AM

I think the reason that so many US parents still have their children circumcised is because physicians still give the procedure tacit approval. The medical profession introduced this bizarre idea to the US public and the medical profession should stop it.

What physicians should be saying to parents enquiring about non-therapeutic circumcision is that it is cruel, painful and waste of money and time, though they do turn a nice profit from doing them.

What does a physician think about when they are hurting a baby for no medical reason? The money?

Do you really think it's a money issue? I mean, seriously, in the context of giving birth and the care of the mother and infant afterwards, the vaccinations, checkups and so on does the circumcision really amount to any significant amount of additional money?

And does the doctor, in a hospital setting, really see that much return from the procedure? I suppose it would depend on the payment system at the hospital, but if the doctor who advises the parents is not the same one who actually carries out the circumcision (which it is likely it won't be) then they won't see any money.

I doubt many circumcisions are preformed in a private practice where the doctor would collect directly from the fee. One would expect them to be nearly universally private-practice if it were for the money.

And if they are paid on a per-procedure baisis, one would think that they could make a lot more money by devoting their time to something which would likely have a higher pay rate.

Unless of course, there is some giant conspiracy between the hospitals and all the doctors on the premisis to sell whatever procedures they can. I'm not aware of any doctors who work on a sales commission...

DRBUZZ0

26th August 2007, 08:38 AM

I snipped the rest so as not to offend those who found it TMI (;)), but I think this example supports my idea.

Perhaps "snipped" is not the best terminology in this situation... something like "removed some of the text in the quotation" would be better...

fls

26th August 2007, 08:48 AM

Honestly Linda, Im not trying to be offensive to you, Im having trouble understanding however how youre phrasing your responses.

For isntance, you say that self determination is something that everyone should have yes? You exclude male infant from that though. Such that, yes, they have self determination, but that the parent can override it for little to no reason.

I'm not excluding the male infant. I'm saying that in order for him to have the right of self-determination during a time when he is unable to exercise that right, his parents do it for him. What you see as acting against his interest they see as acting for his interest. The parents are not over-riding his interests (of what possible use is circumcision to them?), but rather ensuring his interests.

And no no no no, that wasnt what I said. Not cutting off a part of your baby's genitals does not equate to throwing away all parental right to decide anything for them.

And alright then. Lets understand where the line is drawn. As I understand it the line is pretty arbitrary. Cutting off the glans is "over the line" as you say, but why is it?

You don't think most people would consider it over the line?

I assume if some religion came around saying that it was tradition that we would just flat out deny them the right to do it. Why though would we? Why is that appalling, but the other not? The same for other issues, dropping bombs on people, vs people exploding themselves as bombs, the effect is pretty much the same Id imagine, but one is far more appalling.

What sort of test would you propose for deciding what decisions are over the line? I would say that, to address the issue specifically, that the cutting of infant's genitals for non medically indicated reasons should be prohibited by law, of course you could take a much more broad approach to it, but its harder to write a proposed law system that applies to a large body of situations vs a small body.

Okay. So your solution is to prohibit specific activities. So how do we decide which specific activities should be prohibited?

The reason that used the dog example. I am asking whether children are property. Is a child owned in the same way that a dog is owned, and thus, you can do most anything you want to with it? I would argue that while the practice of docking dog's ears isnt something I support, its being conducted on an animal, which I would think most here agree with, is intrinsically of lower "value" than a human, so the process is being conducted on something that has no real ability to think of its own destiny at the time of the docking or later.

Lets transport the issue, as it pertains to drawing the line, and stick with the ear docking example. Would it be acceptable to dock the ears of an infant, who is incapable of consent or understanding of the procedure? Would it be acceptable to dock the ears of an adult who incapable of consent? What if, as is the typical argument, the adult felt neutrally about it, but still didnt decide it for himself, such that I could just walk up and snip his ear off and he doesnt really care.

(This doesnt directly pertain, however. I will admit that I have a bias for the protection of children. We are discussing now the ethics concerned in determining a line of acceptability vs the direct morality of it, so dont say that admittance of a bias is somehow crushing to my argument.

My answer has always been that it is up to the individual to consent, and if they are unable to consent, the person(s) charged with promoting their interests.

But yes. Nothing gets me more up in arms than hearing about child abuse, neglectful parents, false parents, any of the myriad of sexual cases that can be heard about on the news, etc. I feel that because children are incapable of "proper"(which is a discussion into itself) decisions they should be afforded MORE protection, not less. Ill end that for now.)

I think everyone should be afforded the same protections. From a practical point of view, that means that children and other vulnerable people receive extra attention in order to achieve the same level of protection as non-vulnerable people. It seems to me that my viewpoint is consistent with this idea, and that it represents the current status of the law.

Linda

fls

26th August 2007, 08:50 AM

Perhaps "snipped" is not the best terminology in this situation... something like "removed some of the text in the quotation" would be better...

I will confess that my choice of words is not always accidental.

Linda

JJM

26th August 2007, 09:12 AM

{snip} Unless of course, there is some giant conspiracy between the hospitals and all the doctors on the premisis to sell whatever procedures they can. I'm not aware of any doctors who work on a sales commission...No, not on commission, they just get tips.

fls

26th August 2007, 09:20 AM

No, not on commission, they just get tips.

Oh sure. And DRBuzzo complains about me!

Linda

Koshy

26th August 2007, 09:27 AM

1. I'm not excluding the male infant. I'm saying that in order for him to have the right of self-determination during a time when he is unable to exercise that right, his parents do it for him. What you see as acting against his interest they see as acting for his interest. The parents are not over-riding his interests (of what possible use is circumcision to them?), but rather ensuring his interests.

2. You don't think most people would consider it over the line?

3. Okay. So your solution is to prohibit specific activities. So how do we decide which specific activities should be prohibited?

4. I think everyone should be afforded the same protections. From a practical point of view, that means that children and other vulnerable people receive extra attention in order to achieve the same level of protection as non-vulnerable people. It seems to me that my viewpoint is consistent with this idea, and that it represents the current status of the law.
Linda

Alright.

1. I understand that most parents arnt outwardly thinking "Im going to cut his penis he he he, what fun for me." However, you are excluding the big peer pressure issue. Not circumcising could result in alienation of the parents from others, temporarily or permanently. Most fathers want their son to "look like them." There is also pressure from the doctors, and additional pressure from the father thinking that, as was in my case, "If I didnt get it(the foreskin), he doesnt need it either." The list could go on forever.

2. I do think most people would consider it over the line, aside from the ones that do it to themselves, but what I was asking is why? Do you think that if it was practiced from the same period as circumcision and still an established procedure that the opposition would be met with the same "youre stupid" attitude? Im uncertain if the removal of the glans would reinforce the superiority over intact persons position or if it would just be seen as universally appalling, in either situation though why would you think that reaction is given?

My response would be that males are very much tied to their sexual identity through their genitals. So that if something is done that they had no consent to it would tend to be ignored or assumed to be positive. (Only applying to something like institutionalized circumcision, a natural detrimental occurrence I wouldnt expect someone to believe has made them better.)

3. My question yes, how do we decide? I say that the issue has already been addressed in the UN statement of rights, though ignored. The right to bodily integrity. How would you propose that we decide?

4. Yes, however, why are females more protected? Is unequal. Which involves the line drawing issue, ignoring that however, the protection given is just unequal.

"Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein." They dont address the overlaps though.

fls

26th August 2007, 09:47 AM

Alright.

1. I understand that most parents arnt outwardly thinking "Im going to cut his penis he he he, what fun for me." However, you are excluding the big peer pressure issue. Not circumcising could result in alienation of the parents from others, temporarily or permanently. Most fathers want their son to "look like them." There is also pressure from the doctors, and additional pressure from the father thinking that, as was in my case, "If I didnt get it(the foreskin), he doesnt need it either." The list could go on forever.

I've already said that I think that forms the bulk of the reason why parents, in the US, have their sons circumcised for non-religious reasons. I'm not excluding it, I'm saying that is where the perception that their son will be at a disadvantage otherwise comes from.

2. I do think most people would consider it over the line, aside from the ones that do it to themselves, but what I was asking is why? Do you think that if it was practiced from the same period as circumcision and still an established procedure that the opposition would be met with the same "youre stupid" attitude? Im uncertain if the removal of the glans would reinforce the superiority over intact persons position or if it would just be seen as universally appalling, in either situation though why would you think that reaction is given?

Do you honestly think it could become established as a practice?

My response would be that males are very much tied to their sexual identity through their genitals. So that if something is done that they had no consent to it would tend to be ignored or assumed to be positive.

Surely there are limits to this. It would take a fair bit of delusional thinking to persuade a man he's better off without half of his penis - especially when there are others around who would obviously be having a lot more fun than him. Plus, given that men have traditionally been in the position of power, your ability to coerce is significantly curtailed.

(Only applying to something like institutionalized circumcision, a natural detrimental occurrence I wouldnt expect someone to believe has made them better.)

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

3. My question yes, how do we decide? I say that the issue has already been addressed in the UN statement of rights, though ignored. The right to bodily integrity. How would you propose that we decide?

I've explicitly stated how several times, including the post that you just responded to.

4. Yes, however, why are females more protected? Is unequal. Which involves the line drawing issue, ignoring that however, the protection given is just unequal.

How are females more protected?

Linda

DRBUZZ0

26th August 2007, 09:59 AM

Okay, lets get something straight here. If you want to compare females to males in terms of circumcision then the FGM stuff you think of in the middle east ain't exactly a fair comparison.

A rough equivalent to male circumcision for a female would be a partial hoodectomy, sometimes known as a hood reduction or labia minora reduction. It also is sometimes known as a "clitoral circumcision," but this is not to be confused with a "clitectomy." But basically it also removes some skin around the gland region.

That's probably the best analog. Chopping out all the bits they can is more equivalent to emasculation.

And yes, this procedure is preformed in the west. It's not all that uncommon, although I'm not sure it's something they tend to do in infants, in general or anything. But it's done to improve sexual response, for ascetics or for those who may be prone to complications, inflamation, infection and such...Usually it's elective and not really medically necessary, in the purest sense.

Ivor the Engineer

26th August 2007, 10:02 AM

Do you really think it's a money issue? I mean, seriously, in the context of giving birth and the care of the mother and infant afterwards, the vaccinations, checkups and so on does the circumcision really amount to any significant amount of additional money?

And does the doctor, in a hospital setting, really see that much return from the procedure? I suppose it would depend on the payment system at the hospital, but if the doctor who advises the parents is not the same one who actually carries out the circumcision (which it is likely it won't be) then they won't see any money.

I doubt many circumcisions are preformed in a private practice where the doctor would collect directly from the fee. One would expect them to be nearly universally private-practice if it were for the money.

And if they are paid on a per-procedure baisis, one would think that they could make a lot more money by devoting their time to something which would likely have a higher pay rate.

Unless of course, there is some giant conspiracy between the hospitals and all the doctors on the premisis to sell whatever procedures they can. I'm not aware of any doctors who work on a sales commission...

1 million circumcisions in the US per year @ $125 each = $125million/year

A circumcision takes about 20 minutes to perform (even quicker and less expensive if proper pain relief is not used).

Some other questions are:

What happens to all those foreskins? Are most just thrown away or are they sold on? If so, how much for and does this extra income reduce the fee charged for the circumcision? Are the parents asked for their consent for the sale of their child's tissue?

It would be interesting to see how the money is made and divided up. Perhaps one of the US physicians on this forum knows or could find out and tell us?

Ivor the Engineer

26th August 2007, 10:08 AM

<snip>

How are females more protected?

Linda

You've got to be kidding!

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;102/1/153

The American Academy of Pediatrics:

Opposes all forms of female genital mutilation (FGM).
Recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out FGM.
Recommends that its members provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the physical harms and psychological risks of FGM.
Recommends that its members decline to perform any medically unnecessary procedure that alters the genitalia of female infants, girls, and adolescents.

http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics%3b103/3/686

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision. Analgesia is safe and effective in reducing the procedural pain associated with circumcision; therefore, if a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided. If circumcision is performed in the newborn period, it should only be done on infants who are stable and healthy.

Koshy

26th August 2007, 10:10 AM

1.Do you honestly think it could become established as a practice?

2. Surely there are limits to this. It would take a fair bit of delusional thinking to persuade a man he's better off without half of his penis - especially when there are others around who would obviously be having a lot more fun than him. Plus, given that men have traditionally been in the position of power, your ability to coerce is significantly curtailed.

3.I don't understand what you are trying to say here.

4. I've explicitly stated how several times, including the post that you just responded to.

5. How are females more protected?

Linda

1. Do you honestly think cutting off 50% of the penile skin of an infant could ever become a standard practice? Its a hypothetical example...

2. I dont think it would take that much delusional thinking. There are studies afterall that say that the glans is mostly receptive to pain yes? So, the justification that could be used is the same as with the foreskin, its just a redundant piece of flesh that doesnt really serve much of a purpose in our streamlined modern society. Again, the question was IF it already was established, not could it be now.

3. If someone does it to you and alot of other people the natural thought is going to be that it must be good right?

4. Jesus H. Artemis Gordon Christ. I said YOU, not society at large, can I please have some personal input from you, not every other person in the world that youre speaking for.

5. Females are more protected because all forms of non medically indicated female genital cutting is prohibited in the US, as I understand it. I can cut off my sons foreskin, but not my daughters labia. Both are pretty pointless from a functionality standpoint.

DRBUZZ0

26th August 2007, 10:36 AM

1 million circumcisions in the US per year @ $125 each = $125million/year

A circumcision takes about 20 minutes to perform (even quicker and less expensive if proper pain relief is not used).

Some other questions are:

What happens to all those foreskins? Are most just thrown away or are they sold on? If so, how much for and does this extra income reduce the fee charged for the circumcision? Are the parents asked for their consent for the sale of their child's tissue?

It would be interesting to see how the money is made and divided up. Perhaps one of the US physicians on this forum knows or could find out and tell us?

That's not a lot. $125 million in a country like the US?

There is 7 billion dollars spent on greeting cards annually. There are 33 million umbrellas sold each year.

According to the WHO there are one million Doctors/Nurse Practitioners or other licensed medical practitioners in the US. According to the department of labor there are 800,000 medically licensed doctors

Now lets consider the amount for the doctor minus malpractice, taxes, the cut the hospital or clinic gets.... Seems like nit would be not so much.

Consider that I went to the doctor recently because I take allergy medication that, very very rarely causes heart issues and thus I'm supposed to get checked a few times after starting. The nurse took my pulse, listened to my heart, took blood pressure. The doctor comes in, looks at the chart, then puts the stethoscope to my chest and says "Okay" then looks at the chart again and says "No shortness of breath or anything like that?" I say no and he says "Alright. Have a nice day"

Literally took 5 minutes and was 150 dollars without insurance. Granted, he personally won't get all that, but still... that's how it goes.

Sources:

http://www.greetingcard.org/thegreetingcard_facts.html
http://answers.cbfl.net/answers/threadview?id=592995
(the umbrella thing I red somewhere recently... will try to find out)

Koshy

26th August 2007, 10:46 AM

That's not a lot. $125 million in a country like the US?

There is 7 billion dollars spent on greeting cards annually. There are 33 million umbrellas sold each year.

According to the WHO there are one million Doctors/Nurse Practitioners or other licensed medical practitioners in the US. According to the department of labor there are 800,000 medically licensed doctors

Now lets consider the amount for the doctor minus malpractice, taxes, the cut the hospital or clinic gets.... Seems like nit would be not so much.

Consider that I went to the doctor recently because I take allergy medication that, very very rarely causes heart issues and thus I'm supposed to get checked a few times after starting. The nurse took my pulse, listened to my heart, took blood pressure. The doctor comes in, looks at the chart, then puts the stethoscope to my chest and says "Okay" then looks at the chart again and says "No shortness of breath or anything like that?" I say no and he says "Alright. Have a nice day"

Literally took 5 minutes and was 150 dollars without insurance. Granted, he personally won't get all that, but still... that's how it goes.

Sources:

http://www.greetingcard.org/thegreetingcard_facts.html
http://answers.cbfl.net/answers/threadview?id=592995
(the umbrella thing I red somewhere recently... will try to find out)

If youre at work and someone walks in and offers you an additional 20$, how much money do you have to be making to just outright refuse it? "No thanks, I dont want extra money."

Granted this is all conjecture from both sides without some sort of survey, which youre never going to get accurate results from. ("Yeah I totally cut baby penises for extra money.")

However, I have read testimonials from Docs including "I love it because its the only surgery I can conduct on a healthy child"(ETA3: No citation cause I dont want to look for it, take it however you like) and the like. Money is a very powerful motivator, if I make 200 thousand a year normally, why would I dispute making 205? Better yet why would I try not to?

ETA: Were also neglecting to mention the lucrative skin graft industry.
ETA2: 150$ is pretty good, my dermatologist charged 300 for the same amount of time....

DRBUZZ0

26th August 2007, 12:33 PM

Perhaps I am just being too trusting of the medical field, but I tend to think most doctors would not be up for doing something they felt was harmful and unnecessary for a few extra bucks. Especially considering it's likely that they could use the time for something else to make money.

I make a lot less than most doctors, I would tend to think. If someone offered me an extra few bucks I'd say sure. But not if it involved much. If somebody said "You want 20 bucks. All you have to do is listen to ten minutes of music you really hate" I think I'd likely turn that down.

If someone were making a lot of money and offered a bit more, sure they would probably take it. But try this: Offer a doctor fifty bucks if they'll spend 20 minutes listening to music they hate or eat some food that is way too spicey for their liking or spend a day with their office air conditioning off on a hot day. None of these are really that big a deal or all that painful or difficult, but I highly doubt you'd have many takers.

BlackCat

26th August 2007, 02:57 PM

I think the relatively high circumcision rates in the US are the result mostly of social conformity and parents not putting much thought into the decision. Right now, the anti-circumcision crowd has the appearance of a fringe group, and their words are easily dismissed by the average person. For example, the assertion that circumcision is detrimental to sexual function doesn't make sense to the average couple whose experience is otherwise. However, it does make sense to Lithrael because she is in the unusual position of her experience confirming the idea. I suspect that she wouldn't have put much thought into the issue if sex wasn't different between the two?
I would agree with this, which is why I've never tried to use the "less sensation" argument.

I understand the social conformity and parents not thinking argument. First, the parents not putting much thought into it. Why isn't their doctor trying to give them all the information? I know, Linda, you've said that you don't want to push your ideas on others, but don't doctors do that by default? Say you have a cyst (I know this is completely unrelated to circumcision), the doctor says, well, here's what we're going to do to treat it. You can listen to him/her or not, but the fact remains that he's/she's offered his/her opinion of treatment for you. If a patient brought in their infant daughter and asked for you to trim her labia, or cut off her labia minora, you would again offer your opinion, which would be to dissuade them from the procedure, and even inform them that it's illegal. Yet, if someone brought their son in, and asked for you to cut off his foreskin, you would not dissuade them? To me, it says "double standard."

Now to social conformity. Perhaps you would not dissuade parents of sons from circumcision because most men are circumcised, thus, the social conformity argument. Well, from one of the studies posted, that breaks down circumcisions by state, it's clear that rates in the west are much lower than 50%, thus making being intact the norm. What would you suggest to parents in that case?

It looks like the opinions of those in this thread follow from my idea - that they are shaped by social conformity (those from outside the US where it is not the norm are not in favour) and the direction of their personal experience with regard to sexual function (or as a scapegoat for interpersonal interactions). There are exceptions - I think KellyB is one, although I'd have to refresh my memory on that.
I would like to think that I'm not one of the rabid anti-circs being talked about here. I think I've tried to be understanding and use non-inflammatory language. I think I've truly tried to delve into this subject and really understand what's going on with the circumcision phenomenon. I don't think parents who circumcise their boys are bad people.

You keep bringing up "where do we draw the line?" questions with Koshy, and at the risk of answering for him, I do not draw the line at circumcision because of social conformity (in the US or outside the US). For me (we're welcome to talk about this more, if you want) it's an issue of consent. Everything is an issue of consent. Nobody should do anything to you without your consent, and if they do so, that is illegal. (I know, in an ideal world.) If you have sex with someone, it should be because you mutually consent to it. One party not consenting is rape. If a doctor recommends treatment, and if you follow it, it's because you have been informed about the treatment, both pros and cons, and consent to following it. I could go on, but it's getting long-winded.

So, there's still issues of children who cannot consent, and those adults who, for whatever reason, are incapable of consenting. The adults question is not relevant here, which leaves us with children. I believe that parents should be able to consent for medical procedures for their children, with some caveats. Children, to me, are special cases, different from incapacitated adults, because they will one day be able to consent for themselves.

Now, the caveats. I do not believe that parents should be able to consent for their children, any procedure which is not medically necessary, and is permanent. This is because if it not medically necessary, there is still time to decide, and since the child will be able to decide for himself someday, he should choose for himself. Note that this does not apply to say, vaccinations, because they are medically necessary to prevent life-threatening diseases. Circumcision is not a medically necessary procedure, because many groups of physicians have decided by consensus that it is not. (Of course, their recommendations may change, and in light of that change it may be possible that circumcision is medically necessary, at which point I would reassess my views.) Circumcision is also permanent, which means that there should be good evidence for performing a non-reversible medical procedure. In some cases there are, such as phimosis, although I think that other technologies are becoming available, such as stretching, that makes such a drastic solution unnecessary. In the case of non-therapeutic circumcision, its very name implies that it's being performed for no medical reason. I do not think that parents should be able to perform permanent, non-therapeutic procedures on their children without their consent because there is no indication for doing so. I suppose this would include procedures like ear-piercing and tattoos. I, personally, am glad that my parents did not pierce my ears or tattoo my body without my consent. I do not consider parents' responsibility over their children to extend to the ability to consent for permanent, unnecessary procedures.

It could be possible to bring up cultural/societal reasons for circumcision. Unfortunately, I find many of these arguments lacking, and having to do more with conforming to society's expectations, than focusing on the child's right to consent. Also, society can be capricious and whimsical, meaning that its expectations can change at any time, and to me, an illogical barometer to follow.

Some might bring up "what age can a child consent?" I fully admit that I don't know, but different ages can be debated. Certainly, he cannot consent before he can vocalize. I, personally, think an adult is more able to understand the full implications of circumcision, which is why I think it's most logical that we should wait until the child is an adult. This can, of course, be debated.

I think that the rates are more likely to change if parents put more thought into it, and if the uncircumcised state is seen as conforming.
How are parents going to learn, since many parents are very unknowledgeable, and this topic seems very uncomfortable and taboo to most people? I think through their physicians. Their physicians must be able to take a stand and tell their patients the truth about circumcision, both pros and cons.

fls

26th August 2007, 04:53 PM

1. Do you honestly think cutting off 50% of the penile skin of an infant could ever become a standard practice? Its a hypothetical example...

2. I dont think it would take that much delusional thinking. There are studies afterall that say that the glans is mostly receptive to pain yes? So, the justification that could be used is the same as with the foreskin, its just a redundant piece of flesh that doesnt really serve much of a purpose in our streamlined modern society. Again, the question was IF it already was established, not could it be now.

These things follow patterns. They may be dramatic or obvious, but they stop short of impairing important functions. More atrocious acts are saved for those who are vulnerable and without power - women, slaves, prisoners. Can you think of an exception? Have you played the taboo game on the National Geographic site? Is there anything there that wouldn't be chosen over chopping off half of your penis?

3. If someone does it to you and alot of other people the natural thought is going to be that it must be good right?

Uh...no.

4. Jesus H. Artemis Gordon Christ. I said YOU, not society at large, can I please have some personal input from you, not every other person in the world that youre speaking for.

This is what I have said in recent posts (i.e. within the last two pages).

"My answer has always been that it is up to the individual to consent, and if they are unable to consent, the person(s) charged with promoting their interests."

"I think everyone should be afforded the same protections."

"It really depends upon the nature of the harm. I use a hierarchy of death, disability, disease, discomfort, dissatisfaction. I think that in most cases, I would find the first three adequate reasons to interfere. The last two would depend upon the details."

"I don't want someone else to overrule what I think is best for me or my child without good reason*."

Please specify what aspect of the question I have not covered and I will attempt to rectify the situation.

5. Females are more protected because all forms of non medically indicated female genital cutting is prohibited in the US, as I understand it. I can cut off my sons foreskin, but not my daughters labia. Both are pretty pointless from a functionality standpoint.

Females are more vulnerable than males, even in the US (the laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex didn't come about because men were being discriminated against). FGM reflects this vulnerability, so if there are laws prohibiting it, it is in recognition that extra attention needs to be paid to females in order for them to effectively have the same level of protection as males.

Linda

fls

26th August 2007, 05:29 PM

I would agree with this, which is why I've never tried to use the "less sensation" argument.

I understand the social conformity and parents not thinking argument. First, the parents not putting much thought into it. Why isn't their doctor trying to give them all the information?

Why do you think the doctor has any special information to impart when it comes to the issue of conformity?

I know, Linda, you've said that you don't want to push your ideas on others, but don't doctors do that by default? Say you have a cyst (I know this is completely unrelated to circumcision), the doctor says, well, here's what we're going to do to treat it. You can listen to him/her or not, but the fact remains that he's/she's offered his/her opinion of treatment for you.

The doctor has special knowledge to impart, in that situation.

If a patient brought in their infant daughter and asked for you to trim her labia, or cut off her labia minora, you would again offer your opinion, which would be to dissuade them from the procedure, and even inform them that it's illegal. Yet, if someone brought their son in, and asked for you to cut off his foreskin, you would not dissuade them?

I would dissuade both. I personally think the AAP recommendations are too hands-off. However, the situation is not analogous since the reason for labia trimming is different from the reason for circumcision. The reason for the latter is only marginally acceptable, whereas the reason for the former is over the line.

To me, it says "double standard."

I think the situations are different.

Now to social conformity. Perhaps you would not dissuade parents of sons from circumcision because most men are circumcised, thus, the social conformity argument. Well, from one of the studies posted, that breaks down circumcisions by state, it's clear that rates in the west are much lower than 50%, thus making being intact the norm. What would you suggest to parents in that case?

I cannot judge the value of conformity for someone else.

I would like to think that I'm not one of the rabid anti-circs being talked about here. I think I've tried to be understanding and use non-inflammatory language. I think I've truly tried to delve into this subject and really understand what's going on with the circumcision phenomenon. I don't think parents who circumcise their boys are bad people.

That's good to hear. And when I mentioned the anti-circumcision crowd, I was also thinking of what one encounters on anti-circumcision websites, or parenting sites.

You keep bringing up "where do we draw the line?" questions with Koshy, and at the risk of answering for him, I do not draw the line at circumcision because of social conformity (in the US or outside the US). For me (we're welcome to talk about this more, if you want) it's an issue of consent. Everything is an issue of consent. Nobody should do anything to you without your consent, and if they do so, that is illegal. (I know, in an ideal world.) If you have sex with someone, it should be because you mutually consent to it. One party not consenting is rape. If a doctor recommends treatment, and if you follow it, it's because you have been informed about the treatment, both pros and cons, and consent to following it. I could go on, but it's getting long-winded.

So, there's still issues of children who cannot consent, and those adults who, for whatever reason, are incapable of consenting. The adults question is not relevant here, which leaves us with children. I believe that parents should be able to consent for medical procedures for their children, with some caveats. Children, to me, are special cases, different from incapacitated adults, because they will one day be able to consent for themselves.

Now, the caveats. I do not believe that parents should be able to consent for their children, any procedure which is not medically necessary, and is permanent. This is because if it not medically necessary, there is still time to decide, and since the child will be able to decide for himself someday, he should choose for himself. Note that this does not apply to say, vaccinations, because they are medically necessary to prevent life-threatening diseases. Circumcision is not a medically necessary procedure, because many groups of physicians have decided by consensus that it is not. (Of course, their recommendations may change, and in light of that change it may be possible that circumcision is medically necessary, at which point I would reassess my views.) Circumcision is also permanent, which means that there should be good evidence for performing a non-reversible medical procedure. In some cases there are, such as phimosis, although I think that other technologies are becoming available, such as stretching, that makes such a drastic solution unnecessary. In the case of non-therapeutic circumcision, its very name implies that it's being performed for no medical reason. I do not think that parents should be able to perform permanent, non-therapeutic procedures on their children without their consent because there is no indication for doing so. I suppose this would include procedures like ear-piercing and tattoos. I, personally, am glad that my parents did not pierce my ears or tattoo my body without my consent. I do not consider parents' responsibility over their children to extend to the ability to consent for permanent, unnecessary procedures.

Sigh. I just went back to page 5 of this discussion to link to the first of the twenty times this issue has already been hashed over. I think it is probably time that I learned my lesson.

It could be possible to bring up cultural/societal reasons for circumcision. Unfortunately, I find many of these arguments lacking, and having to do more with conforming to society's expectations, than focusing on the child's right to consent. Also, society can be capricious and whimsical, meaning that its expectations can change at any time, and to me, an illogical barometer to follow.

Some might bring up "what age can a child consent?" I fully admit that I don't know, but different ages can be debated. Certainly, he cannot consent before he can vocalize. I, personally, think an adult is more able to understand the full implications of circumcision, which is why I think it's most logical that we should wait until the child is an adult. This can, of course, be debated.

How are parents going to learn, since many parents are very unknowledgeable, and this topic seems very uncomfortable and taboo to most people? I think through their physicians. Their physicians must be able to take a stand and tell their patients the truth about circumcision, both pros and cons.

Physicians are already supposed to present the pros and cons. I don't think parents are weighing this issue on a medical basis.

Linda

Koshy

26th August 2007, 09:56 PM

1.These things follow patterns. They may be dramatic or obvious, but they stop short of impairing important functions. More atrocious acts are saved for those who are vulnerable and without power - women, slaves, prisoners. Can you think of an exception? Have you played the taboo game on the National Geographic site? Is there anything there that wouldn't be chosen over chopping off half of your penis?

2.Uh...no.

3. This is what I have said in recent posts (i.e. within the last two pages).

"My answer has always been that it is up to the individual to consent, and if they are unable to consent, the person(s) charged with promoting their interests."

"I think everyone should be afforded the same protections."

"It really depends upon the nature of the harm. I use a hierarchy of death, disability, disease, discomfort, dissatisfaction. I think that in most cases, I would find the first three adequate reasons to interfere. The last two would depend upon the details."

"I don't want someone else to overrule what I think is best for me or my child without good reason*."

Please specify what aspect of the question I have not covered and I will attempt to rectify the situation.

4.Females are more vulnerable than males, even in the US (the laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex didn't come about because men were being discriminated against). FGM reflects this vulnerability, so if there are laws prohibiting it, it is in recognition that extra attention needs to be paid to females in order for them to effectively have the same level of protection as males.

Linda

1. If youre trying to inform me of the myriad of bad things that go on in the world, youre a little late.
Cutting off a female's labia doesnt interfere with baby making, which it seems everyone thinks is the only function of the genitals.

2. Um yes. Im sure youve never heard the expression "if theyre all doing it it must be good."

3. Again, you think everyone should be afforded the same protection, except infant males. You drop alot of abstract terms without really defining your stance on the same terms you just dropped. Im not the only person have trouble with it.

4. Thats great, however they dont have the same level of protection, they have a superior level of protection. As Ive said, why can I cut my son but not my daughter. Not that Im arguing against female protection, but your statements about protection and equality are pretty squarely off. I detect some feminist sentiment in your position.

DRBUZZ0

26th August 2007, 10:15 PM

4. Thats great, however they dont have the same level of protection, they have a superior level of protection. As Ive said, why can I cut my son but not my daughter. Not that Im arguing against female protection, but your statements about protection and equality are pretty squarely off. I detect some feminist sentiment in your position.

You can cut your son but not your daughter? Again, do you have the slightest idea what the difference between FGM and male circumcision are, in terms of magnitude?

Now let me ask you this: If you "cut" your daughter in the sense of a reduction of the clitoral hood, you would consider that the same sort of mutilation, or even in the same league as what goes on in North Africa?

Granted, I think if you posed the request to a doctor "Excuse me, I was thinking you could possibly reduce the skin around my daughters upper labia" they would look at you a bit strange, because it's not exactly something which is done in general in infancy.

Seriously there is something puzzling to me about using male circumcision and female genital mutilation in the statement. Try reading my post above or go get an anatomy text book.

If you want to say "Male circumcision is something that should not happen to a males genitals, just like FGM is something that is wrong and shouldn't happen to a female..."

Well then you may as well say "That guy who spraypainted swasticas on the Jewish community center is just like HITLER"

or

"Some guy bumped me and left a big gash in my rear bumper, it was an accident, just like the Titanic"

or

"Someone spilled their drink on my carpet. It was a tragic and unexpected event that damaged property, just like Hurricane Katrina and the Asian Tsunami combined did"

or

"The decision of the mayor to not continue the pothole repair program lead to a damaged city, in much the same way as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima lead to a damaged city"

or

"I disagree with that guy's idea of what makes for a good meal, in much the same way I do with Jeffery Dahlmer"

or

"Putting a whoopie cushion on his chair before the meeting was cruel and uncalled for, in the same way the Spanish Inquisition was"

or

"Loosing my car keys would be bad, just like having a large meteor destroy the human race would be"

Ivor the Engineer

27th August 2007, 02:27 AM

You can cut your son but not your daughter? Again, do you have the slightest idea what the difference between FGM and male circumcision are, in terms of magnitude?

Now let me ask you this: If you "cut" your daughter in the sense of a reduction of the clitoral hood, you would consider that the same sort of mutilation, or even in the same league as what goes on in North Africa?

Granted, I think if you posed the request to a doctor "Excuse me, I was thinking you could possibly reduce the skin around my daughters upper labia" they would look at you a bit strange, because it's not exactly something which is done in general in infancy.

Seriously there is something puzzling to me about using male circumcision and female genital mutilation in the statement. Try reading my post above or go get an anatomy text book.

If you want to say "Male circumcision is something that should not happen to a males genitals, just like FGM is something that is wrong and shouldn't happen to a female..."

Well then you may as well say "That guy who spraypainted swasticas on the Jewish community center is just like HITLER"

or

"Some guy bumped me and left a big gash in my rear bumper, it was an accident, just like the Titanic"

or

"Someone spilled their drink on my carpet. It was a tragic and unexpected event that damaged property, just like Hurricane Katrina and the Asian Tsunami combined did"

or

"The decision of the mayor to not continue the pothole repair program lead to a damaged city, in much the same way as the atomic bombing of Hiroshima lead to a damaged city"

or

"I disagree with that guy's idea of what makes for a good meal, in much the same way I do with Jeffery Dahlmer"

or

"Putting a whoopie cushion on his chair before the meeting was cruel and uncalled for, in the same way the Spanish Inquisition was"

or

"Loosing my car keys would be bad, just like having a large meteor destroy the human race would be"

Please post some links about the various types of FGM and male circumcision so that we can all see how different the two practices are. The reason I'm asking you to do this is because I think you have done zero research on this subject and think that you know that all types of FGM are worse than male circumcision.

Note that we should only be comparing the two practices as they are performed in the same region, not, for example, US infant circumcision vs. African FGM, because if FGM was practiced in the US it would have probably become similar in magnitude to infant circumcision.

Ivor the Engineer

27th August 2007, 02:53 AM

<snip>

Females are more vulnerable than males, even in the US (the laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex didn't come about because men were being discriminated against). FGM reflects this vulnerability, so if there are laws prohibiting it, it is in recognition that extra attention needs to be paid to females in order for them to effectively have the same level of protection as males.

Linda

Nice display of mental gymnastics.

How did the laws prohibiting discrimination based on sex come about? Do you think men were using the same type of arguments that pro-circumcision people are now and women were occasionally calling them names?

How, exactly, is a female child under the age of 10 "more vulnerable" than a male child under the age of 10?

And just how many females were circumcised in the US before the law banning it came into force, compared to males? I don't know, but I bet it was a tiny, tiny fraction. So, if this was the case, then boys were (and are) being discriminated against more than girls, thus by your logic it was males that needed the "extra attention", not females.

Sorry Linda, laws against sexism are always worded to say an individual will not be discriminated against based on their sex. It does not matter which sex they were brought into protect, they apply to both equally.

fls

27th August 2007, 04:48 AM

1. If youre trying to inform me of the myriad of bad things that go on in the world, youre a little late.

That wasn't my point at all. My point was that various cultures do various things with their bodies in order to mark themselves as members of a group. And while the choice of activity may be variable, they follow a similar pattern. They do not significantly interfere with important functions. So you may see cultures pierce and make other sorts of holes in their lips, you don't see one that sews the lips shut, as that would seriously impair their ability to eat.

So that you don't see any cultures chopping off half of their son's penis isn't just a matter of happenstance and cultural relativism, it's because half a penis significantly impairs or eliminates the enjoyment of sex and the ability to make new sons. And it is important, biologically, for men to enjoy sex, as ejaculation is necessary for continuation of the species.

Cutting off a female's labia doesnt interfere with baby making, which it seems everyone thinks is the only function of the genitals.

Exactly. Which is why it can be successfully used on your own women and children without interfering with the biological continuation of your family.

2. Um yes. Im sure youve never heard the expression "if theyre all doing it it must be good."

I don't think repeating an aphorism serves as proof that members of a culture are completely unable to evaluate the harm in a procedure just because it is frequently performed.

3. Again, you think everyone should be afforded the same protection, except infant males.

No. I have stated that their protection should be based on the judgment of those with their best interests in mind (i.e. their parents/guardians) and on the protection afforded by society equally to all its individual members. You seem to think that their protection should be based on over-ruling those protections and prohibiting specific activities. I asked you to explain how you would go about that - how you would choose which activities to prohibit.

You drop alot of abstract terms without really defining your stance on the same terms you just dropped. Im not the only person have trouble with it.

I have repeatedly (including within the post that you quoted) stated that if you need me to specify a definition, I would do so. I have also stated that I will elaborate on any point that isn't clear. I have also done that very thing multiple times in my posts to you. The post of mine that you quoted includes an example of that - a statement plus a specific definition of one of the abstract terms used in the statement. Your complaint is particularly specious given that you have neglected to bother answering many of my very specific questions to you. I will be generous and consider that, though you seem to ignore those questions where the answer would show your argument is fallacious, this is merely coincidence.

4. Thats great, however they dont have the same level of protection, they have a superior level of protection. As Ive said, why can I cut my son but not my daughter. Not that Im arguing against female protection, but your statements about protection and equality are pretty squarely off.

You are equating two things that are not the same - laws and protection. That there are laws prohibiting discrimination against someone because they are black, does not mean that black people have more protection than white people. Black people require extra legal attention in order for their protection to be equal to that of white people within the setting of US history.

The problem, as I have mentioned several times, is that males are cut for a completely different reason than females are cut. You are pretending that they are somehow the same because the area in which they are cut is vaguely similar. That's like saying that allowing the wearing of the Sikh kirpan sewn into a sheath, but not allowing the carrying of a loaded gun in school is unfair.

Let's see how clever you are. Let's see if you can guess why the law is unequal. Let's see if you can guess why there aren't laws prohibiting specific activities performed for the purpose of subjugating white males in the US.

I detect some feminist sentiment in your position.

I presume that is meant to be pejorative. Nice.

What is the name of the movement initiated for the express purpose of ensuring equal treatment of white males in the US?

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

27th August 2007, 05:34 AM

<snip>
You are equating two things that are not the same - laws and protection. That there are laws prohibiting discrimination against someone because they are black, does not mean that black people have more protection than white people. Black people require extra legal attention in order for their protection to be equal to that of white people within the setting of US history.

There are no laws that prohibit discrimination against someone because they are black.

The law will state that discrimination based on ethnicity or skin colour is illegal.

The problem, as I have mentioned several times, is that males are cut for a completely different reason than females are cut. You are pretending that they are somehow the same because the area in which they are cut is vaguely similar. That's like saying that allowing the wearing of the Sikh kirpan sewn into a sheath, but not allowing the carrying of a loaded gun in school is unfair.

Really? Got any evidence to back that up? Are you saying all male circumcisions are performed for benevolent reasons and female circumcisions are done out of malice? Even if they are, so what? How do the reasons for the act change the physical abuse to the child?

Let's see how clever you are. Let's see if you can guess why the law is unequal.

The law is unequal because it was worded specifically so male infant circumcision could continue to be practiced in the US.

Let's see if you can guess why there aren't laws prohibiting specific activities performed for the purpose of subjugating white males in the US.

Linda

Cute. The “white males” came up with a law that did not affect what they think of as acceptable behaviour.

Darth Rotor

27th August 2007, 10:42 AM

Yes, your story clearly wasnt meant to apply in blanket fashion to all circumcised men. You just came it to say that you were very happy with it.
Happy enough with the functions of my manhood, but as to the sensation question, I can't compare it to otherwise. (As you and Ivor and a few others have noted.)
and heavily imply that everyone else is,
Nope. You read that into the post, I didn't write that, nor did I mean that. You projecting, not me writing. I was/am a single datum.
The point is that its not my choice. It is my choice to have him vaccinated, or to feed him bananas, not to cut off part of his penis to make it conform to my ideals of beauty, since the medical argument has been flattened.
That is your opinion, based your self centered morality, and LL (or anyone's) is not required to so base decisions on your closely held, personal tentes. He did cite the law, correctly, which you then reacted to as an invalid position. That too I felt needed mention.
are clearly emotionally embroiled yourself,
No, that's you projecting again, and reading into what was written. My only emotion, as it were, was empathy for LL, as a father, and seeing some mean spirited internet post wishing harm on his son.
since youre lacking your "turtle neck" as you like to call it, and call all my reasonings emotive bollocks.
Note my "good on ya, your choice" remark, which contradicts what you just stated. If the turtle neck is your thing, good for you, or for anyone.
About me being a prick, Im not here to impress you Mr.Rotor. Find me offensive, find me wonderful, its no skin off my nose (other areas maybe), the issue still exists.
Indeed, I am able to undertake the arrogant prick role myself. The issue is in your mind, and based on how you posted, in your emotions. Absent your wish for harm to LL's kid, no post from me. This thread has been very informative without my participation to date. The thread, suitably filtered for emotionally charged points, puts the E into JREF rather nicely.
Youre not making an argument, youre just here to press buttons and be a nuisance, as you said yourself.
You state I wanted to be a nuisance, I did not, and yes, I was interested in tweaking your nose based on your intentions/wishes for mishap to LL, or rather to his son. I like LL. He's been a warrior in the war against stupid for some years.
And no, I dont have to deal with it, I can just go become uncircumcised anytime I want.... ohh wait. Good point, thanks.
Exactly. Your choice. No one else ought to meddle in your business.

We have an accord.

I read a little snippet in Atlantic Monthly this weekend, which coincidentally enough briefly summarized a small study about the sensitivity nodes on uncircumsiced penises (five, IIRC). The summary seems to parallel nicely some of the comments in this thread.

This got me thinking.

If the sensitivity bonus of being uncircumcised is an order of magnitude greater, then one outcome of that lucky condition might be a higher incidence of premature (or at least difficult to control) ejaculation. One sincerely hopes that your nickname wouldn't be Quick Koshy for any reason other than your intellect, if that were the case. Practice does allow for mitigation of that risk. FWIW, if you have not had kids yet, the Kegel exercises taught (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/kegel-exercises/WO00119)in Lamaze class (http://www.lamaze.org/) to women for pre pregnancy muscle toning can be helpful for men in that arena.

Putting the E into JREF, and at last something new and useful from me, to you, on this topic, sorta.

DR

DRBUZZ0

27th August 2007, 12:29 PM

Please post some links about the various types of FGM and male circumcision so that we can all see how different the two practices are. The reason I'm asking you to do this is because I think you have done zero research on this subject and think that you know that all types of FGM are worse than male circumcision.

Note that we should only be comparing the two practices as they are performed in the same region, not, for example, US infant circumcision vs. African FGM, because if FGM was practiced in the US it would have probably become similar in magnitude to infant circumcision.

Alright:

Male -

Partial Circumcision - Basically a circumcision which leaves a significant This is commonly done for a foreskin that cannot be retracted or is irritated because it is too large for cleaning or movement.

Standard Circumcision (Preputioplasty) - Removal of the majority of the foreskin, but done loosely with the remaining tied. The frenulum generally remains and the "Lower foreskin" is usually mostly left. (this is the type which is preformed on infants and such)

Re-Circumcision - An adult procedure for those who are circumcised but want more of the foreskin removed or who have a partial attachment issue or scar.

Complete Circumcision - A rather general term meaning circumcision which favors removal of as much foreskin tissue as possible, even earing on the side of removing additional tissue. It commonly results in very tight skin pulling to cover the area, and this can cause issues. It also can sometimes include attachment of the gland to the skin of the shaft, without an obvious transition - This is not generally a western medical procedure, but is popular in Islam.

Partial Penectomy - Ask John Wane Bobbet

Complete Penectomy (Emascultion) - Removal of the complete penis, usually including the root structure.

Castration - Removal of the testies

Complete Emasculation - Removal of all the goods.

Female:

Type I: (this is the only type at all common in modern western medicine)

Partial Hoodectomy/hood slitting - Removal of part of the clitoral hood or cutting of it. This is actually somewhat common in Western Medicine for hood structures which are too tight, cause irritation or cannot be retracted to clean and therefore are prone to inflammation or infection. Also for sexual reasons.

Hoodectomy/Clitoridectomy - Removal of most of the hood or dramatic reduction such that the clitoral gland is exposed except for the labia. Usually, as with medical male circumcision it is done conservatively with some skin left behind. This is most common in adult women and is generally elective. In some cases, it may improve sexual stimulation, depending on the anatomy of the individual. However it can also lead to oversensitivity. It is relatively rare in infants.

Labiaplasty - Refers to any medical procedure which involves reshaping of the labia (usually primarily labia minora) Usually this is a reduction, but it can also be reshaping or extension. It is usually elective surgury

Type II: (common in Islam. Also in Africa and parts of South Asia. Some more progressive muslims contend it is not an islamic practice, but a cultural one that is not required. However, it is mentioned in the Koran and the more conservative islamic sects generally consider it a religious necessity)

Excision or clitoridectomy - Removal of the clitoral gland, clitoral hood and some or all of the labia minora. This is not generally done in modern western medicine, except as an extreme measure for cancer or a severe defect. This is very rare.

It is one of the most common forms of female genital cutting in the middleeast and other parts of the world. It is sometimes done in a medical setting but may also be done by religious figures or family memebers, often in non-sterile, uncontrolled conditions without any pain control.

It is preformed in the non-islamic world electively by islamic converts. However, in many European countries, it has been deemed illegal for parents to to this to minors or have a doctor do it. Of course, this does not stop it, and some may go to hospitals in the middleeast to have it done to their child, or have a local shake or Islamic midwife do it.

Usually the woman is left incapable of orgasm or normal sexual function, although it can sometimes be achieved by the remaining clitoral stem.

Complete or internal clitoridectomy: Like above, but also rips out any roots of the clitoris and sometimes digs the tissue around it to ensure nothing may be left behind. Also common in Islam

Type III:

Infibulation - This is NEVER done in western medicine, but a similar procedure may, in extreme examples, be done if there is very rampant cancer or for extreme cases.

Although sometimes done in Islam, most developed Islamic countries consider this to be just too extreme for most cases. However, it's still popular in parts of Africa and other less developed regions. But it is used in many mainstream islamic countries for women who are deemed to be immoral or suspected of adultry. It is seen as a mild punishment, compared to death by torture.

It takes type II to the next level. It removes all the external structures and tissues and scrapes the vaginal and cervical walls. The only remaining tissue is parts of the anal region and urethra.

Even the "monds pubis" is dug out, in most cases.

The large raw open wound is bandaged or partially stitched up with a scared hole left behind for menstruation and urination and sexual intercourse. However, how it heals (assuming death does not occure first) is not really controlled. It may become a mound of scar tissue or a gaping void or something in between.

Infabulation with sewing - same as above, but the wound is allowed to partially heal then opened up and sewn so as to leave a small pencil-sized hole for menstruation and urination.

This procedure removes even the most remote possibility of female sexual physical pleasure. It also commonly causes major complication and may require additional cutting to re-open the urethra or remove scar tissue.

This is most common in Africa and preformed by village elders on those 2-9 years old. In areas where it is not the general practice it may also be done to women as punishment or if they are thought to be too "loose" or "rebellious" or are a risk of adultery.

Upon marriage the area is generally cut or ripped open for sexual intercourse. Of course, the scaring and lack of the normal structures impedes child birth, and this is usually remedied with more cutting/digging. Or simply pushing really hard. Which will result in birth... not a very pretty birth, but if it's pushed hard enough, something has to give.

Sources:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episiotomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumcision
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

http://www.circlist.com/

http://www.religioustolerance.org/fem_cirm.htm
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/
http://www.circinfo.net/
http://www.cirp.org/
http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/

Note: I'm not going to footnote and number each and everything. I ain't writing a thesis and this was unpleasant enough to check out.

Koshy

27th August 2007, 02:33 PM

1. You state I wanted to be a nuisance, I did not, and yes, I was interested in tweaking your nose based on your intentions/wishes for mishap to LL, or rather to his son. I like LL. He's been a warrior in the war against stupid for some years.

2. Exactly. Your choice. No one else ought to meddle in your business.

We have an accord.

DR

1. No worse than what happened to me.

2. You did read that yes?

Lithrael

27th August 2007, 04:52 PM

I completely agree that using inflammatory language does NOT help solve the problem. It doesn't even matter how true it can potentially be, the moment you come up to a parent and use 'mutilate' and 'your son' in the same sentence, they are not listening to you anymore.

I think there's something wrong with the guys when they are that obsessed with the penis. I often wonder if they are having unrelated issues, and are blaming a lack of foreskin for inadequacies in other areas. I notice that, as you said, mentally healthy men don't seem to have any problem with it.

Hrmm. On the one hand I'm sure this is sometimes true, on the other the way you say it seems pretty harsh to me. It's not at all unheard of that there are unpleasant results or outright mishaps. The few who are stuck living with the results are naturally going to tend to be pretty pissed off. And those with a lot of empathy are going to be pissed off that anyone is forcing such an unnecessary risk on their kids, no matter how small the risk is.

But I also completely agree that FGM and the vast majority of male circumcisions are simply a world apart. There is a risk of things going wrong in male circs and that's part of why I'm against it. When it's done right it takes away a little potential fun for a typical guy trying to enjoy himself. It's sad, but it won't ruin him in the slightest. When FGM is done right... o.O

In response to those saying that anticirc videos are propaganda, though, I'd love to see a pro-circ video showing the kind of calm experience with an alert, reasonably distress-free baby that some of the posters here have described.

Koshy

27th August 2007, 05:35 PM

I completely agree that using inflammatory language does NOT help solve the problem. It doesn't even matter how true it can potentially be, the moment you come up to a parent and use 'mutilate' and 'your son' in the same sentence, they are not listening to you anymore.

Hrmm. On the one hand I'm sure this is sometimes true, on the other the way you say it seems pretty harsh to me. It's not at all unheard of that there are unpleasant results or outright mishaps. The few who are stuck living with the results are naturally going to tend to be pretty pissed off. And those with a lot of empathy are going to be pissed off that anyone is forcing such an unnecessary risk on their kids, no matter how small the risk is.

But I also completely agree that FGM and the vast majority of male circumcisions are simply a world apart. There is a risk of things going wrong in male circs and that's part of why I'm against it. When it's done right it takes away a little potential fun for a typical guy trying to enjoy himself. It's sad, but it won't ruin him in the slightest. When FGM is done right... o.O

In response to those saying that anticirc videos are propaganda, though, I'd love to see a pro-circ video showing the kind of calm experience with an alert, reasonably distress-free baby that some of the posters here have described.

If I had been born female and subsequently mutilated, would you expect me to lack empathy for males?

Regardless of everyone's desire for PC language the word mutilate is quite accurate for both male and female.

I hate that it happens to females, I hate that it happens to males. Ive been careful to balance my views pertaining to male and female. I think drawing a line of badness between the two is counterproductive, if that makes sense.
They are both reprehensible, they are both terrible, they should both be completely banned, outside of medical indication.

Sorry I havnt responded to any of the larger posts today, Ive been rather busy.

DRBUZZ0

27th August 2007, 06:40 PM

If I had been born female and subsequently mutilated, would you expect me to lack empathy for males?

Regardless of everyone's desire for PC language the word mutilate is quite accurate for both male and female.

I hate that it happens to females, I hate that it happens to males. Ive been careful to balance my views pertaining to male and female. I think drawing a line of badness between the two is counterproductive, if that makes sense.
They are both reprehensible, they are both terrible, they should both be completely banned, outside of medical indication.

Sorry I havnt responded to any of the larger posts today, Ive been rather busy.

That is... beyond ridiculous. Seriously... it's... absolutely ridiculous.... It's... well... idiotic and insulting really.

I honestly cannot see how a human behind who is clear minded and of slightly bellow average intelligence or better could come to that conclusion. To compare the two is so beyond the realm of what I could fathom one logically thinking, I can only come to the conclusion that either A) this is rhetorical or designed to make a point B) This is just trolling C) I am not infact seeing this and I am either in some sort of drug induced coma or have been slipped LSD or something equally powerful D) You have been subject to some very severe exposure to material designed to cause psycological effects which would go against basic logic E) You are insane or on some very powerful drugs F) You're a complete and utter idiot G) You are evil.

Now, I do not know where to draw the line for "mutulation" and I will not get into the stupid "The world is not black and white" argument or be told that I somehow am making myself the standard bearer.

Okay... lets use this analogy. Lets say the "grey spectrum" of what is mutilation is a map of the world... you follow?

Ok good. The middle ground of the grey area is somewhere in the atlantic. It's subjective and people can disagree. It's impossible to be sure. Maybe it's going through greenland... some might even say it is as far as the canaries islands. A few might even come to the conclusion that it's off the coast of Florida.

Ok? Grey area. So stuff that falls in that area... there's conjecture.

But Male circumcision... that's in eastern Europe. It's not in the area of reasonable conjecture. It's not even that close. Some might say it's close, but... it's far enough away that it's pretty apparent which end it is on.

Okay, you follow so far?

Female genital mutilation is in Japan. It's so far to the east, that there's absolutely no way a reasonable person could say it's on the side that is not mutilation.

Okay... lets try to make another analogy, because of all the damn relativists here. (and I have a feeling athon or nails is going to consider this bait to say something).

Can we all agree on what constitutes an "Old person"? No. Some might say 75. Others 65. Some might say you only have to be beyond adulthood.

So we cannot draw the line, can we?

But... can we universally agree, or at least, nearly universally agree that a 108 year old is an "old person." And can we pretty much say the same about a 96 year old? and can the vast majority of us say the same about a 89 year old?

And can we equally agree that a seven year old is not an old person?

Lets look at the definition of mutilation:

To Mutilate. The act of mutuliting.

Mutilate:
(via Oxford Dictionary)

1. To injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging necessary parts. Implies severe. To make unrecognizable.

2. To destroy or severely disfigure, such as change appearance beyond reconstruction or remedy. To reduct to usability.

3. To cause severe and intentional injury; implies torture; implies dishonor.

(oxford expanded)

By convention implies severe and intentional injury, with the intention of irreversible and dramatic change in appearance, such as to make unrecognizable or entirely non-functional. Includes amputations of limbs or other disfigurement. Often used in the context of disbarment, as with a dead body or for the purpose of torture or punishment.

Forms of mutilation would include branding, gouging of eyes, traumatic amputations, emasculation, burning of flesh, branding.

Mutilation may be an aspect of torture, but torture resulting in disfigurement, but without the direct intent thereof, is not necessarily mutilation. Often mutilation of a person would be done such as to render them incapable (blind, deaf, unable to reproduce, handicapped) or to make them disfigure, undesirable or ashamed. Sometimes considered a "lifelong punishment" see: branding, marking (criminal), humiliation (punishment).

(via American Heritage)

1. To cause disfigurement to or to make severely disfigured. To decompose the appearance of.
2. To destroy the function and shape of. (Us: Human animal or remains)
3. To completely and severely misshape.
4. To destroy beyond repair.

(via Randomhouse Websters Complete)

1. The absolute destruction, disfigurement or reduction of. [Person or animal by convention]
2. Torture to the degree of complete disfigurement. To cause great pain to and damage to. To make unable through torture.
3. To injure in a manner which implies severity.
4. To make entirely incapable of performing a function or being recognized.
5. To remove all beauty or to render ugly.

(Britannica Dictionary of the American Language)

To cause the destruction of/to totally destroy/to torture and disfigure/to harm beyond recovery/to make incapable (imp: In anger, to cause pain, to make suffer)

Also as: Vandalize, Disfigure, Injure, dishonor, completely destroy, mangle, rip, shred

DRBUZZ0

27th August 2007, 06:47 PM

Koshy

27th August 2007, 07:47 PM

Ok. I just realized I left something open for Nails/Athon/Pisc to get me on.

By old person: I mean within human age constrains and not applying to the whole of human history including those who are dead.

and I mean in a time scale which is not based on the age of the universe or the halflife of positronium. But in general human time, in common usage.

(please don't ask me to define common usage or general)

It means... in most contextual idioms in current societies.

Okay... define most... lets say "the vast majority of"... okay.. we'll call it 75%

And nobody in this analogy is traveling at a velocity which is great enough to result in appreciable time distortion.

And by appreciable, I mean large enough to be detected by some means which is less precise than a rubidium atomic clock. And I know those will be different.

So lets say the design specs for a mass-produced frequency standard operating properly and within good repair.

Okay.. define what is good enough to be considered "good repair"

um...

Seriously... none of the persons in the above example are even near enough to make a difference...

Okay... now you want to know what constitutes "enough" and "difference"

um

nevermind. Seriously. Nevermind.

So, in the spectrum of analysis that youve so clearly outlined. Lets just say that something is acceptable because its not "as bad" as something else.

I suppose rape at knife point would be made illegal, but plain rape with no weapon would be just fine.

They are both human rights violations, they are both horrible, they both should end, for the second time, I dont feel a need to elaborate, and I WILL draw the comparison between the two, because they are easily comparable.

I argue that both are bad and need to end, meanwhile you say no no female genital mutilation is worse, and so males deserve to endure circumcision because the female version is worse, right. Both are bad, both should end.

Youre also failing to think of the various other forms of male infant genital mutilation, practiced in various tribes around the world. Look it up on google.

Drawing a line of whats bad and worse in two things that are all together deplorable is pointless. If I could end male circumcision at the expense of continuing female circumcision for another 200 years would I? No. If I could do the inverse, would I? No. They both should end. There are quite a few other things that should end as well, but yes, you understand.

Iunno if I quoted the right part, have quite a headache at current.

DRBUZZ0

27th August 2007, 08:30 PM

So, in the spectrum of analysis that youve so clearly outlined. Lets just say that something is acceptable because its not "as bad" as something else.

I suppose rape at knife point would be made illegal, but plain rape with no weapon would be just fine.

They are both human rights violations, they are both horrible, they both should end, for the second time, I dont feel a need to elaborate, and I WILL draw the comparison between the two, because they are easily comparable.

I argue that both are bad and need to end, meanwhile you say no no female genital mutilation is worse, and so males deserve to endure circumcision because the female version is worse, right. Both are bad, both should end.

Youre also failing to think of the various other forms of male infant genital mutilation, practiced in various tribes around the world. Look it up on google.

Drawing a line of whats bad and worse in two things that are all together deplorable is pointless. If I could end male circumcision at the expense of continuing female circumcision for another 200 years would I? No. If I could do the inverse, would I? No. They both should end. There are quite a few other things that should end as well, but yes, you understand.

Iunno if I quoted the right part, have quite a headache at current.

Christ. No.

Both rape and rape at knife point would be illegal.

Slashing of tires would also be illegal, but not nearly as bad, or even close.

Yelling obscenities at someone... well... that's into the gray area. Perhaps if it was a threat or disturbed the peace or was an attempt to incite violence.

Sticking your tongue out at someone... not illegal... but possibly not a nice thing to do...

Picking flowers... even further into the "undoubtedly legal" area....

Wow... do you honestly do this for fun or what? Seriously, there's some sort of epidemic of this idea that if you can't quantify something universally, you can't tell where the hell it falls.

(I don't know exactly how much my car weighs, btw. I don't have a scale that big and I didn't look it up in the manual. But it weighs more than a loaf of bread. I'm damn sure of that. How much more? I don't know, but a lot. A real lot. Enough that I can tell it ain't even close. Oh, and I think it weighs less than my brothers car. But you might look at them and say "No I think your brothers car looks like it weighs more." And that's not unreasonable. But if you honestly think that it looks like it weighs more than a 747... well.. sorry, I have trouble believing that you would actually come to that conclusion)

Note to persons mentioned above and others. This is not an invitation to debate the weight of cars. Yes, it is different than the mass. And... relative boyant weight in the atmosphere as well... and I know... evaluating the weight of objects is an imperfect analogy, because you could quantify them, if you had a scale. Analogies are often imperfect. This should not be news to you. To say X is like Y does not mean X is identical to Y. They may simply have a similarity which is useful for illustrating a point... such as evaluating things which are clearly many degrees of mantidue in difference vrs those which are clearly close, such as rape and rape with a kife, which, some people don't seem to understand the difference between.

Koshy

27th August 2007, 08:45 PM

Your conclusion on the universal ethics of genital mutilation based on your perceived notion of rates of damage is wonderful, however not agreeable to.

I dont want females cut, I dont want males cut. Whats not agreeable about this? Why do you feel the need to draw some arbitrary line.

So rape is unacceptable no matter what. Genital cutting is more or less acceptable depending on how much whoevers doing it decides to cut off. There are much more radical forms of male genital cutting as well.

Most of your differences arise from the fact that males have a penis and females have a vagina. Listing the way that a vagina is cut vs a penis doesnt make sense, theyre quite different organs, despite their shared developmental courses. I fail to see why opposing female circumcision for the same reason as male is somehow insane or stupid.

I regret that females have their genitals forcibly cut for no real reason. I regret that males have their genitals forcibly cut for no real reason. I oppose both.

Why do you think male circumcision is more acceptable than female?

ETA: Id be curious to hear the viewpoint about why female circumcision is more acceptable than male from areas that only cut females. Assuming that would be the answer. Just a side note of curiosity.

Lithrael

27th August 2007, 11:03 PM

I dont want females cut, I dont want males cut. Whats not agreeable about this? Why do you feel the need to draw some arbitrary line.

Nobody's arguing that that's not a perfectly good position to take. The problem is talking about the two issues as if they were practically the same.

So rape is unacceptable no matter what. Genital cutting is more or less acceptable depending on how much whoevers doing it decides to cut off. There are much more radical forms of male genital cutting as well.

That's pretty much it, yeah. FGM and extreme male genital cutting are both out. If 'hoodectomy' was the norm I'd feel it was bad but not an outright atrocity. Male circumcision is bad but not an outright atrocity. The culture we're in simply doesn't think of male circumcision as mutilation. It's your right to call it that and I don't think it's outside the realm of reason or anything, but the fact remains you can't get a dialog going like that. You can't change any part of society from the outside.

Most of your differences arise from the fact that males have a penis and females have a vagina. Listing the way that a vagina is cut vs a penis doesnt make sense, theyre quite different organs, despite their shared developmental courses. I fail to see why opposing female circumcision for the same reason as male is somehow insane or stupid.

There are analogs to what the bits are for. If you've had your whole genital region turned to hamburger, you've lost all capacity for sexual pleasure. If you've lost a clitoris, you've often lost capacity for orgasm. If you've lost a clitoral hood, you've just lost some sensitive tissue. If you've lost most of a penis, you've often lost capacity for orgasm. If you've lost a foreskin you've just lost a lot of sensitive tissue. The spectrum runs from "loss of some sensation" to "hamburger." That's the difference. There you go.

Why do you think male circumcision is more acceptable than female?

ETA: Id be curious to hear the viewpoint about why female circumcision is more acceptable than male from areas that only cut females. Assuming that would be the answer. Just a side note of curiosity.

Why do I think it's more acceptable in western society? Because traditionally guys love sex either way, and cut girls basically can't. Because guys are in a position of power, and girls aren't. Guys feel protective towards girls, and they don't feel protective towards themselves or other guys. Because it's established tradition. All of those are reasons.

Why is FGM acceptable where it's practiced? Well, shock surprise, because it's part of a culture of expressing explicit male dominance over women. I would imagine traditionalists who think of themselves as more level-headed simply consider it an important part of ensuring a woman will be clean, respectable and marriageable.

If you're trying to point up that male circ is all about making men feel subjugated or bad about sex, I wouldn't say there was never or that there can't now be an element of that involved. I have heard religious people say it's important to help prevent masturbation, which is a hideously backward attitude but there you go. However, most of the time, in the modern setting, it's simply an unfortunate blind adherence to tradition.

I can understand not wanting to dilute one's culture in LL's situation, though I can't say I agree with him. But then I don't really understand the attraction of belonging to a culture. Nobody raised me to value it for my own good, heh. In the end, I don't consider the practice bad enough to do more than try hard to change his mind about it, which has already happened here anyway.

Koshy

28th August 2007, 12:12 AM

1.Nobody's arguing that that's not a perfectly good position to take. The problem is talking about the two issues as if they were practically the same.

2.That's pretty much it, yeah. FGM and extreme male genital cutting are both out. If 'hoodectomy' was the norm I'd feel it was bad but not an outright atrocity. Male circumcision is bad but not an outright atrocity. The culture we're in simply doesn't think of male circumcision as mutilation. It's your right to call it that and I don't think it's outside the realm of reason or anything, but the fact remains you can't get a dialog going like that. You can't change any part of society from the outside.

3.There are analogs to what the bits are for. If you've had your whole genital region turned to hamburger, you've lost all capacity for sexual pleasure. If you've lost a clitoris, you've often lost capacity for orgasm. If you've lost a clitoral hood, you've just lost some sensitive tissue. If you've lost most of a penis, you've often lost capacity for orgasm. If you've lost a foreskin you've just lost a lot of sensitive tissue. The spectrum runs from "loss of some sensation" to "hamburger." That's the difference. There you go.

4.Why do I think it's more acceptable in western society? Because traditionally guys love sex either way, and cut girls basically can't. Because guys are in a position of power, and girls aren't. Guys feel protective towards girls, and they don't feel protective towards themselves or other guys. Because it's established tradition. All of those are reasons.

5.Why is FGM acceptable where it's practiced? Well, shock surprise, because it's part of a culture of expressing explicit male dominance over women. I would imagine traditionalists who think of themselves as more level-headed simply consider it an important part of ensuring a woman will be clean, respectable and marriageable.

6.If you're trying to point up that male circ is all about making men feel subjugated or bad about sex, I wouldn't say there was never or that there can't now be an element of that involved. I have heard religious people say it's important to help prevent masturbation, which is a hideously backward attitude but there you go. However, most of the time, in the modern setting, it's simply an unfortunate blind adherence to tradition.

Firstly thankyou for giving a reasonable response.

1. They are essentially the same. As a male I cant speak about pleasure loss for a female with any degree of accuracy, suffice it to say I would feel horribly violated and betrayed were it to happen to me. The dimorphism in the argument occurs in the popular functionality issue, which tries to ignore the aspect of pleasure. Women are still capable of functioning(in the most crass and common in these discussions use of the word) with bits removed, as are men.

I dont understand the divide between male and female genital cutting. Both have unknown psychological effects, both are damaging the reproductive organs, both are generally always uncalled for. I wouldnt say that female is worse because it is absolutely deplorable. I wouldnt say male is worse, it is absolutely deplorable. On my scale there is no lower. I dont rank horrible things that way, as I said I think its counter productive. Ranking horrible practices or occurrences seems to have a minimizing effect on them.
("Ohh this isnt as bad, we dont need to worry about it.")

2. The cutting of infants genitals, no matter how minimal, without medical indication and in a way that will permanently alter their bodies is always a violation of human rights.

Im well aware of rhetorical method, and hence when introducing someone new I start off slowly. The purpose of this dialog however isnt to masquerade around using more gentle terms, its to discuss the issues. It is mutilation against both male and female, changing the terminology doest effect the reality.

3. Yes, the structures are similar, however not completely parallel. There are many degrees of cut for both male and female, disregarding the more popular methods. Females are structured differently, I am aware yes. Not all female cuttings involve turning the vagina into a hamburger, some do, some male practices are also quite radical. Regardless of the level of cut they are all equally horrible.

4-5. Remembering that cut women are often times supportive of cutting future generations, the same as cut men. Both seem to be perpetuated by this supposed good will interest on the parent's part. The fact that a majority of adults may feel fantastic about their sex lives and being circumcised still doesnt affect the issue of another person's rights(the infant) being violated, in male or female. If a majority of cut women enjoyed sex would that become another justification for continuing the practice? Likewise in a sexually inverted society, if women took the traditional male role as we define it, would that also invert the current situation regarding genital cutting?(making male less acceptable and female more.)

6. Traditions need reevaluated from time to time. Something I consider most insulting about my particular case is the lack of will on my parent's part to even research on the topic. Tradition is important in a culture, and I support a number of traditions, none that violate the rights of another person though. Circumcision is a very complicated issue with many many facets. There is an objective reality involved however.

And on that Im going to bed. Thankyou again for your reasonable response. Im sorry if this is worded odd at all, Im very tired at present.

Ivor the Engineer

28th August 2007, 01:25 AM

For all those who think FGM stops a woman enjoying sex or achieving orgasm, please read this post (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2902105#post2902105).

And again, it is not valid to compare the practices of male circumcision in the US to those used for female circumcision in Africa, since FGM would have evolved into something similar to male circumcision in the US, if it had not died out there in the 1950's (yeah, that's right - 1950's).

Turkey has a male circumcision ritual for young boys, usually performed about 8 years old.

This (http://www.cirp.org/library/cultural/turkey1/) makes it sound so nice.

This (http://www.noharmm.org/CApostcirc.htm) is a picture of a boy after (don't worry, it's safe for work!)

And this (http://www.noharmm.org/CAmoslcerem.htm) one during (again, it's safe for work).

For all of you claiming that the amount of physical damage is an important difference between the two practices, do you feel the same about sexual abuse of children, or is that all bad (except circumcision, of course)?

fls

28th August 2007, 03:24 AM

(I don't know exactly how much my car weighs, btw. I don't have a scale that big and I didn't look it up in the manual. But it weighs more than a loaf of bread. I'm damn sure of that. How much more? I don't know, but a lot. A real lot. Enough that I can tell it ain't even close. Oh, and I think it weighs less than my brothers car. But you might look at them and say "No I think your brothers car looks like it weighs more." And that's not unreasonable. But if you honestly think that it looks like it weighs more than a 747... well.. sorry, I have trouble believing that you would actually come to that conclusion)

I think that the analogy you are looking for is whether or not both a loaf of bread and your car are heavy. And whether regulations governing work-place safety, that restrict the lifting of heavy objects, are unfair.

Linda

Lithrael

28th August 2007, 03:24 AM

Aigh, Ivor. No, yeah, I'm all with you on that one. My argument's all about the whole infant-circumcision-in-hospitals-in-the-USA thing. The summary hacking off of anything in a ceremony is pretty damn horrible.

I also will not disagree with the potential for mental anguish from male circs, another reason I am against them.

But as for the quoted study I never said a type I or II female circumcision made it impossible to enjoy sex. A type I (partial hoodectomy) is what I'd call comparable to a male circ. A type II wouldn't preclude vaginal orgasms. And, for crying out loud, read what it says. "No significant differences between cut and uncut women were observed in ... the proportions reporting experience of orgasm during intercourse." DURING INTERCOURSE. You don't HAVE clitoral orgasms during intercourse. Clitoral orgasms are the kind a woman can have on her own. Hence the need to stop them. Certainly I've seen surveys of western women that reported a significant proportion, up around 30%, could only reach orgasm with the help of direct clitoral stimulation. And both surveys and 'girl talk' agree that easily one in four girls have serious trouble reaching orgasm in the first place. You guys have no idea how easy you have it! Heheh, penis envy much? Yeah, no kidding.

Men have it tough with performance issues. Endurance. Size. Real tough. I won't mince words. But at least you guys can get there. The few of you who have trouble getting it up are the ONLY ones who know what it's like for a hell of a lot of women.

It's not just an issue of sympathy for the poor clitorises and a big rule8-you to those worthless foreskins. I would be shocked and happily reverse my opinion if anyone could show me a study that shows that the foreskin is anything like as important to orgasm as the clitoris.

And I can't get behind anyone that's trying to say FGM, that type III, hamburger-meat version of 'female circumcision' is comparable in any way to a routine western male circumcision.

*cough*

I'm a nice girl, really.

fls

28th August 2007, 03:36 AM

A type I is what I'd call comparable to a male circ.

Just because this has caused some confusion in the past....

A Type I FGM may include removal of part of the clitoris, so it may help to specify that a hoodectomy or partial hoodectomy is the procedure that is comparable (if that is what you were thinking).

ETA: I suspect that if the only procedure in traditional use on females was a partial hoodectomy, that it would not be condemned as FGM.

Linda

Lithrael

28th August 2007, 03:59 AM

And again, it is not valid to compare the practices of male circumcision in the US to those used for female circumcision in Africa, since FGM would have evolved into something similar to male circumcision in the US, if it had not died out there in the 1950's (yeah, that's right - 1950's).

Please clarify. I am under the impression that worldwide, FGM is fairly rare but practiced and that type I and II female circs are common. But it's a whole culture I disagree with, and though awful, female circs are probably not the worst of their problems. The fight against female circumcision is a whole different ballgame to the campaign against routine male circumcision in the US. That's kind of the whole point of this part of the argument.

For all of you claiming that the amount of physical damage is an important difference between the two practices, do you feel the same about sexual abuse of children, or is that all bad (except circumcision, of course)?

Actually yes, because what consitutes abuse also has a cultural element. I would have to say that the degree of harm and the cultural context would have to be an important difference in how I'd react to it. It would all still be bad, though, of course - just as all circumcision is bad. But that doesn't mean there's no scale. Unless you're going to put the sexualizing of kids in fashion and children's beauty pagaents, creepy uncle's bad touch after Thanksgiving dinner, and the ritual marriage of men to little girls in the same basket.

Ivor the Engineer

28th August 2007, 04:49 AM

Please clarify. I am under the impression that worldwide, FGM is fairly rare but practiced and that type I and II female circs are common. But it's a whole culture I disagree with, and though awful, female circs are probably not the worst of their problems. The fight against female circumcision is a whole different ballgame to the campaign against routine male circumcision in the US. That's kind of the whole point of this part of the argument.

How do you think people who circumcise their females for cultural reasons will reply when Westerners tell them that it is “wrong” to mutilate (or cut if we’re being PC) girls’ genitals for non-medical reasons? My guess is they’ll tell them to “[rule 8] off, you do it to boys for non-medical reasons!”

Actually yes, because what consitutes abuse also has a cultural element. I would have to say that the degree of harm and the cultural context would have to be an important difference in how I'd react to it. It would all still be bad, though, of course - just as all circumcision is bad. But that doesn't mean there's no scale. Unless you're going to put the sexualizing of kids in fashion and children's beauty pagaents, creepy uncle's bad touch after Thanksgiving dinner, and the ritual marriage of men to little girls in the same basket.

The way I see it they are in the same basket, just at different levels of depravity within it.

Ivor the Engineer

28th August 2007, 05:11 AM

Ivor the Engineer

28th August 2007, 05:17 AM

Just because this has caused some confusion in the past....

A Type I FGM may include removal of part of the clitoris, so it may help to specify that a hoodectomy or partial hoodectomy is the procedure that is comparable (if that is what you were thinking).

ETA: I suspect that if the only procedure in traditional use on females was a partial hoodectomy, that it would not be condemned as FGM.

Linda

I suspect if US physicians had been more successful in promoting the removal of the clitoris in girls then you would be apologizing for that too;)

Dabljuh

28th August 2007, 05:59 AM

Darth Rotor

28th August 2007, 06:39 AM

I can defend circumcision. Not the practice, especially when performed on newborns or children, but the state.

Its not so bad as to make out circumcised people as victims of mutilation. It is mutilation, it is a mutilating procedure and should be stopped. But telling men that they're worthless now to a woman is certainly not the sensible way to achieve that.
This thread continues to serve up some nice tidbits of info (Dr Buzzo's summary of the degrees of "genitalia meets knife" being one of them) but it doesn't answer a core question for me.

Presume for this musing that God didn't tell the Chosen, or much of anyone else, that he needed a foreskin here and there to cement the covenant, or for whatever reason. Leave religion at the door for the nonce.

In some place, in some time, there was a first trimming. Some guy, or guys, or woman for all I know, sat down and pondered a penis. After manipulating the foreskin back and forth a bit and considering the aesthetics hatted and bald, the trend setter(s) decided "this permanent attachment will not do." (We have the archetype Hollywood surgeon in the making, but this is no nose job.) Mind you, every guy wandering about has a foreskin, just as we each have a nose, a rectum, two hands, etc.

This guy, or these guys, arrive at the conclusion that "it's gonna be different in the dick department from here on out: bald is beautiful."

Why cut your dick with a sharp object? What series of ideas and linked decisions, or events, led these pud pondering pioneers to the conclusion that the next step in life ought to be to get that sharp piece of obsidian, or flint, or bronze, or whatever, and start slicing away at the manhood?

I will bet the over on this decision not being made alone, but on a dare. A bunch of guys sitting around (perhaps in some primal circle jerk in the Rift Valley), engaged in the usual shooting of the breeze, and one dares another. A pause. Do what? Eyes wide, laughs, and then you get the whole group daring and taunting each other in rapid succession. (Was this historic first undertaken after the invention of beer, somewhere in Egypt, or after the discovery of the first exotic mushrooms?) There is always one bull goose loony in a crowd, so one steps forward to demonstrate his status as "first to do this mad thing."

The trend setter sets to it with a will, wincing through the pain, and presto, he removes his bone's balaclava.

Here is the part I can't fathom.

He's bleeding. It hurts. The sausage is sensitive, and unlike its normal condition, not good or fun to touch. No fundamental change in function occurs, other than to increase the daily ration of pain and discomfort. This brilliant idea has, in the short run, some unpleasant consequences. Whatever he expects the positive outcomes to be are deferred, and to be discovered.

Here's the cream of the joke.

Another guy considers all of the above, and concludes that this was a great idea, he's going to do it too. Slice and dice, part two. Lemmings with lancets, heading over the cliff of circumcision. With reasoning power like that, it's a wonder that all of humanity didn't rush over a cliff one day, because it seemed like a good idea at the time.

It doesn't stop there, as I recently found out from a friend. He linked me to a site that advocates the joys and wonders of genital bifurcation. No, I shall not link it, I suspected it would be gross and it is. Not sure if it is for real or not, but it's all about mutilated manhood.

With the above considered, I'll postulate that "The Age of Reason" is a myth, a pocket of space time restricted to a few narrow clusters of humanity. Considered in the larger sense, and desire of the Foundation to extend reasoning to a broader spectrum of the population, methinks the JREF is tilting at windmills.

Why not? It seems like a good idea at the time. :)

Sancho, my lance!

DR

fls

28th August 2007, 06:57 AM

This thread continues to serve up some nice tidbits of info (Dr Buzzo's summary of the degrees of "genitalia meets knife" being one of them) but it doesn't answer a core question for me...DR

<trimmed for the sake of neatness>

I have pondered this as well, and while your suggestion is more amusing (and quite frankly, more consistent with the frat boy mindset it seems to require ;)), it seems more likely that it started as a surgical procedure in order to relieve phimosis which is likely to have been a more common problem than it is now.

Linda

Koshy

28th August 2007, 07:23 AM

And again, it is not valid to compare the practices of male circumcision in the US to those used for female circumcision in Africa, since FGM would have evolved into something similar to male circumcision in the US, if it had not died out there in the 1950's (yeah, that's right - 1950's).

For all of you claiming that the amount of physical damage is an important difference between the two practices, do you feel the same about sexual abuse of children, or is that all bad (except circumcision, of course)?

Thats pretty much my thoughts on the matter. We dont start ranking other things like this, why is circumcision different. The only reason I suspect is the normalization of it over the years, ala the tradition reasoning.

Like I said as well itd be curious in a male female inverted society what their position would be on the matter. Or the areas that practice female but not male, on why female is ok but the male is sacred or some nonsense(assuming thats how it would turn out, Ive not seen anything like that as of yet).

Good morning to the rest of the forum.

Ivor the Engineer

28th August 2007, 08:27 AM

Thats pretty much my thoughts on the matter. We dont start ranking other things like this, why is circumcision different. The only reason I suspect is the normalization of it over the years, ala the tradition reasoning.

Like I said as well itd be curious in a male female inverted society what their position would be on the matter. Or the areas that practice female but not male, on why female is ok but the male is sacred or some nonsense(assuming thats how it would turn out, Ive not seen anything like that as of yet).

Good morning to the rest of the forum.

I'm not sure there is any society that only mutilates its females' genitals.

fls

28th August 2007, 08:40 AM

Thats pretty much my thoughts on the matter. We dont start ranking other things like this, why is circumcision different. The only reason I suspect is the normalization of it over the years, ala the tradition reasoning.

I think the reason that you are having trouble understanding is because your comparisons are inappropriate, for example, comparing rape to rape at knife-point is not analogous to the difference that is being drawn between male circumcision and FGM. We are not talking about ranking two acts that are seen as egregious by most involved, we are pointing out that one act is seen as egregious by most and one act is not seen as egregious by most. You may understand this if you ponder the difference between forced sexual intercourse at knife-point and grabbing a woman's butt as you walk by her on the street. Some people can (and do) claim that both are a sexual assault, but would you find it surprising if most people scoff at the idea that the latter should be a capital offense punishable by death?*

Most everything we do is ranked like this.

Like I said as well itd be curious in a male female inverted society what their position would be on the matter. Or the areas that practice female but not male, on why female is ok but the male is sacred or some nonsense(assuming thats how it would turn out, Ive not seen anything like that as of yet).

I suspect it would end up much the same way - that whatever procedures were performed on females would not make a difference in function from their perspective and whatever procedures were performed on males may be more extensive, but would not interfere with whatever function the females considered necessary (if you are comparing cultures with female dominance similar to cultures with explicit male dominance).

Linda

*Please note that the examples chosen for comparison were not chosen to represent the relative level of FGM vs. male circumcision, but to emphasize the difference in an attempt to make it obvious.

Ivor the Engineer

28th August 2007, 10:07 AM

I think the reason that you are having trouble understanding is because your comparisons are inappropriate, for example, comparing rape to rape at knife-point is not analogous to the difference that is being drawn between male circumcision and FGM. We are not talking about ranking two acts that are seen as egregious by most involved, we are pointing out that one act is seen as egregious by most and one act is not seen as egregious by most. You may understand this if you ponder the difference between forced sexual intercourse at knife-point and grabbing a woman's butt as you walk by her on the street. Some people can (and do) claim that both are a sexual assault, but would you find it surprising if most people scoff at the idea that the latter should be a capital offense punishable by death?*

Most everything we do is ranked like this.

<snip>

Linda

*Please note that the examples chosen for comparison were not chosen to represent the relative level of FGM vs. male circumcision, but to emphasize the difference in an attempt to make it obvious.

Society decides if an act is legal or not. The "ranking" is only important when deciding on appropriate punishment for the offense. E.g., fines, community service, a prison sentence or (in some supposedly civilized parts of the world) the death sentence.

If all forms of female genital cutting of girls are illegal then, by symmetry, male circumcision of boys has to be too.

Or are you arguing for a change to US law to allow some forms of female genital cutting of young girls at the wish of parents?

JoeEllison

28th August 2007, 10:12 AM

Society decides if an act is legal or not. The "ranking" is only important when deciding on appropriate punishment for the offense. E.g., fines, community service, a prison sentence or (in some supposedly civilized parts of the world) the death sentence.

If all forms of female genital cutting of girls are illegal then, by symmetry, male circumcision of boys has to be too.

Or are you arguing for a change to US law to allow some forms of female genital cutting of young girls at the wish of parents?Hoodectomy, the equivalent of circumcision, IS legal... and beneficial to some women.

Circumcision isn't genital mutilation. At most, it is like getting your tonsils removed or wisdom teeth pulled preemptively. You might have a better case if you came at it from that angle. You overheated and inaccurate rhetoric only hurts your position.

Ivor the Engineer

28th August 2007, 10:39 AM

Hoodectomy, the equivalent of circumcision, IS legal... and beneficial to some women.

Labia trimming is legal too. But only for adults who can give informed consent.

Hoodectomy is illegal to perform on an infant at the request of a parent.

Circumcision isn't genital mutilation. At most, it is like getting your tonsils removed or wisdom teeth pulled preemptively. You might have a better case if you came at it from that angle. You overheated and inaccurate rhetoric only hurts your position.

How is my rhetoric inaccurate?

from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate

mutilate:

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts.

How is some or all of that definition not applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision (of either sex)?

ETA: And it looks like I've fallen into the "bad cop" role in this debate. But don't I make Linda look fabulous?:D

Lithrael

28th August 2007, 11:32 PM

Hoodectomy is illegal to perform on an infant at the request of a parent.

I can't really figure out how you'd even do it, or what the possible point could be. Male infant circumcision at least provides things you can call benefits, and I'd assume that is another part of why the laws are different. For example, hunting around sex-ed sites for stats, I did run into a lot of Q&A boards with numerous guys who were running into phimosis problems. Of course these should be solved with information and treatment, not routine circumcision, but again you can see the issues bewteen genders are simply different.

The other legal reasoning probably is the one stated here before, that female circ is generally done specifically to reinforce the lower status of women, while male circ is generally done for a bunch of stupid reasons, and the only one that involves male repression is the idea that it makes it less fun to masturbate.

I would have no problem with routine male circumcision becoming illegal in the US in the same way infant female circumcision is illegal in the US. Whatever US Muslims have to do to get their girls a hoodectomy for tradition, US Jews and other traditionally circ'd groups can do to get their boys circumcised for tradition. Or both can simply wait till they're old enough to get one legally.

But you would run into trouble deciding who to sue when there were diesgreements over what was medically necessary or not. In the short term it makes much more sense to simply campaign against it sensibly with education.

DRBUZZ0

28th August 2007, 11:53 PM

Labia trimming is legal too. But only for adults who can give informed consent.

Hoodectomy is illegal to perform on an infant at the request of a parent.

There are anatomical and conventional details. If a parent wanted a hoodectomy for their infant daughter, I might think "okay... that's kinda weird... um... why... would you want that? are you sure that's a good idea?" But I wouldn't think "My god they butchered her genitals beyond all recognition and function! What a barbaric and savage act of bloodcurdling cruelty"

How is my rhetoric inaccurate?

from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/mutilate

mutilate:

1. to injure, disfigure, or make imperfect by removing or irreparably damaging parts.

How is some or all of that definition not applicable to non-therapeutic circumcision (of either sex)?

ETA: And it looks like I've fallen into the "bad cop" role in this debate. But don't I make Linda look fabulous?:D[/QUOTE]

You realize I went into the very extreme defining of mutilation, right? If your definition is so broad that it includes any body modification that is not directly and entirely medically therapeutic.

Let me give you an example: I had my wisdom teeth removed. I was only 16 years old. Occasionally kids get them early and they are even younger. I wasn't old enough to entirely make my own decisions.

Did it hurt? Yea. My mouth was swollen for a while after. Could it have had complications? Yeah. They gave me antibiotics to prevent infection, but of course that's not 100% effective... Now my wisdom teeth are gone and will never grow back. I have a patch of empty gum behind my molars.

So what was the problem they were causing? Nothing. Nothing at all.

My molars were in good alignment and the dental professionals warned that wisdom teeth, when they become impacted can push other teeth out of alignment. They could mess up my bite. Or even if they came in mostly well, as I grew, they could shift and there would not be enough room and thus impact into the molars.

Were they doing this? No. It was preventative. Would they cause problems? They might. Having really bad problems with wisdom teeth is not uncommon... it's not really likely but major problems happen on occasion. And minor problems, like missalignment are quite common. Not that they can't be delt with or you can't live with them. But they are common enough that it was thought warneted to yank them out just to assure that this would not be a concern.

Does this effect my body? Yes. Perminantly.

Does this effect how I eat/chew? Yeah, a bit. I have one less set of potential back teeth to grind with. Would I have used them much? Well.. probably not that much. But did it change the way I potentially chew? Yea.

Did it make me chew better? Did it make me chew worse? Dunno. Never will.

Explain how this is not mutilation.

I think you may have not come to realize that mutilation has an implicit magnitude aspect to it. It is obviously subjective to some end. But I would not call breaking the tip of my pencil a "catastrophe" even if it meets the definition as being something unplanned and negative and damaging, because "Catastrophe" carries an implicit convention of being extreme.

EHLO

29th August 2007, 12:47 AM

Geez I thought this little act of barbarism was outlawed long ago. Imagine my surprise when I caught this story on our national broadcaster;

Recent medical trials suggest that circumcision can reduce HIV transmission rates by about sixty per cent.

Full Story (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/lifematters/stories/2007/2014287.htm)

and then a few nights later this story on Sixty Minutes;
Circumcision's been around for centuries, but here in Australia it's no longer fashionable. Stand by for a new and heated round of debate, to cut or not to cut.

Full story ( http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=289096)

Both stories were rather uncritical and relied more on opinion than evidence and appeared biased toward getting the chop quoting I assume this study (http://www.news-medical.net/?id=14025) and anecdotes about urinary tact infections etc.

The sixty minutes after-show discussion with Prof Brian Morris is truly blood boiling if you're looking for a balanced insight into the pro's and cons of circumcision;

Jayson asks: What are some reasons not to have my son circumcised?
Prof Brian Morris: I can't think of any.
.
.
golden asks: Professor, I know infections can happen, but why would boys get infections constantly?
Prof Brian Morris: Because the bacteria cannot be washed away. Uncircumcised boys have hygiene problems, after washing the bacteria return within hours. With age they get a malodorous film that is full of dead skill cells and bacteria, urine and dirt that is called smegma.
.
.
Full transcript (http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=289966)

Arrggghhhh!!! Smegma!!!

-EHLO (intact, and still clean after 34 years)

Ivor the Engineer

29th August 2007, 01:38 AM

There are anatomical and conventional details. If a parent wanted a hoodectomy for their infant daughter, I might think "okay... that's kinda weird... um... why... would you want that? are you sure that's a good idea?" But I wouldn't think "My god they butchered her genitals beyond all recognition and function! What a barbaric and savage act of bloodcurdling cruelty"

See, the difference between you and me is that I believe there should be significant physical advantages for a non-consenting individual to be put through a procedure that causes, both during and after, significant physical pain and alters the sensation and functionality of a body part.

You realize I went into the very extreme defining of mutilation, right? If your definition is so broad that it includes any body modification that is not directly and entirely medically therapeutic.

Yes, now you’re getting the idea. Unless a physical alteration is performed for therapeutic reasons or to correct a deformity, it is mutilation.

Let me give you an example: I had my wisdom teeth removed. I was only 16 years old. Occasionally kids get them early and they are even younger. I wasn't old enough to entirely make my own decisions.

Did it hurt? Yea. My mouth was swollen for a while after. Could it have had complications? Yeah. They gave me antibiotics to prevent infection, but of course that's not 100% effective... Now my wisdom teeth are gone and will never grow back. I have a patch of empty gum behind my molars.

So what was the problem they were causing? Nothing. Nothing at all.

My molars were in good alignment and the dental professionals warned that wisdom teeth, when they become impacted can push other teeth out of alignment. They could mess up my bite. Or even if they came in mostly well, as I grew, they could shift and there would not be enough room and thus impact into the molars.

Were they doing this? No. It was preventative. Would they cause problems? They might. Having really bad problems with wisdom teeth is not uncommon... it's not really likely but major problems happen on occasion. And minor problems, like missalignment are quite common. Not that they can't be delt with or you can't live with them. But they are common enough that it was thought warneted to yank them out just to assure that this would not be a concern.

Does this effect my body? Yes. Perminantly.

Does this effect how I eat/chew? Yeah, a bit. I have one less set of potential back teeth to grind with. Would I have used them much? Well.. probably not that much. But did it change the way I potentially chew? Yea.

Did it make me chew better? Did it make me chew worse? Dunno. Never will.

Explain how this is not mutilation.

I don’t know how competent your dentist is or was, but I’ve never known anybody in my lifetime that has had their wisdom teeth removed if they were not causing a problem, only if they were or were likely to cause a problem. Was your dentist fairly old?

Was it mutilation? If they were unlikely to cause a problem, then yes. However, I doubt having your wisdom teeth removed has negatively effected your enjoyment of chewing, how you chew, or another person’s pleasure when you are chewing.

I think you may have not come to realize that mutilation has an implicit magnitude aspect to it. It is obviously subjective to some end. But I would not call breaking the tip of my pencil a "catastrophe" even if it meets the definition as being something unplanned and negative and damaging, because "Catastrophe" carries an implicit convention of being extreme.

The word ‘mutilate’ and its definition that I gave describe non-therapeutic circumcision of either sex accurately.

How extreme does a circumcision have to be to pass your personal threshold of mutilation?

A typical male circumcision removes 50% or more of the skin of the penis and 20,000 highly sensitive nerve endings. A study done this year has demonstrated the foreskin is the most sensitive part of a man’s penis. Additionally, the foreskin has mechanical functions during intercourse and masturbation. Circumcised men have to adapt their technique to masturbate and most find it more difficult and less enjoyable than before they were circumcised.

Ivor the Engineer

29th August 2007, 02:14 AM

I can't really figure out how you'd even do it, or what the possible point could be. Male infant circumcision at least provides things you can call benefits, and I'd assume that is another part of why the laws are different. For example, hunting around sex-ed sites for stats, I did run into a lot of Q&A boards with numerous guys who were running into phimosis problems. Of course these should be solved with information and treatment, not routine circumcision, but again you can see the issues bewteen genders are simply different.

About 0.6% of male boys need to be circumcised for therapeutic reasons. My cousin’s son is currently being assessed to see if he needs to be circumcised. The doctor has responsibly and professionally decided to treat his particular problem conservatively to start off with, only considering circumcision as a last resort.

The other legal reasoning probably is the one stated here before, that female circ is generally done specifically to reinforce the lower status of women, while male circ is generally done for a bunch of stupid reasons, and the only one that involves male repression is the idea that it makes it less fun to masturbate.

Many keep on saying this but I’ve yet to see any evidence that this is the case. In fact, many see it as a rite of passage; a girl becoming a woman, similar to the way male circumcision is seen to transform a boy into a man. It is often mothers who have the procedure performed on their daughters and it is the mother who holds them down while they are having it done.

And even if it is done to “reinforce the lower status of women”, who are you to say that is wrong in culture other than your own? Are any of the women complaining about their status? If they are, let them change it.

See, this is where the cultural relativist argument falls flat on its face – whatever a culture does is right for the people who belong to that culture, since a cultural relativist does not believe there is an external reference to judge one culture’s behaviour against another. It’s a very modern and trendy way to think about the world, but totally unrealistic for cultures that interact with one another on a regular basis.

I would have no problem with routine male circumcision becoming illegal in the US in the same way infant female circumcision is illegal in the US. Whatever US Muslims have to do to get their girls a hoodectomy for tradition, US Jews and other traditionally circ'd groups can do to get their boys circumcised for tradition. Or both can simply wait till they're old enough to get one legally.

But you would run into trouble deciding who to sue when there were diesgreements over what was medically necessary or not. In the short term it makes much more sense to simply campaign against it sensibly with education.

Which is why I keep on saying that physicians should be telling parents that infant circumcision is painful, cruel and a waste of time and money. It is hardly a monster that has gotten away from them; they perform the vast majority of the circumcisions in the US! But they don’t do that, because they can’t even admit it to themselves, hence all the nonsense about medical benefits that pretty much the whole of Europe manages to get by without.

I’m still waiting for someone to explain why, if removing the prepuce of an infant female is illegal in the US, doing the same to an infant male is not?

BlackKat

29th August 2007, 05:32 AM

...
And even if it is done to “reinforce the lower status of women”, who are you to say that is wrong in culture other than your own? Are any of the women complaining about their status? If they are, let them change it.
...

The problem is that because of their lower status they can't change it.

Ivor the Engineer

29th August 2007, 06:06 AM

The problem is that because of their lower status they can't change it.

Really? How did women change their status in our culture then?

BlackKat

29th August 2007, 06:32 AM

Really? How did women change their status in our culture then?

Considering that women are still paid less than men for equal work in our cultures?

But striving for equality requires people on both sides to do the work. For instance the women's suffrage movement in the U.S. required women and men to give women the right to vote. Women were at the core of the movement but it's success required male state and federal congressmen who were sympathetic to their cause to put forth and vote for amendments that gave them the right to vote (and hold offices themselves).

Koshy

29th August 2007, 07:39 AM

Really? How did women change their status in our culture then?

Interesting line of reasoning, as it applies to infants. How can an infant change its status in our culture.

Ivor the Engineer

29th August 2007, 07:47 AM

Considering that women are still paid less than men for equal work in our cultures?

But striving for equality requires people on both sides to do the work. For instance the women's suffrage movement in the U.S. required women and men to give women the right to vote. Women were at the core of the movement but it's success required male state and federal congressmen who were sympathetic to their cause to put forth and vote for amendments that gave them the right to vote (and hold offices themselves).

So why could this not happen in cultures that practice FGM?

What right do you have to impose your morality on them, especially when you condone the abuse of infant males in a similar way to that which they do to girls?

You can't logically believe in universal human rights and cultural relativism.

fls

29th August 2007, 08:03 AM

Interesting line of reasoning, as it applies to infants. How can an infant change its status in our culture.

An age-change operation?

Linda

BlackKat

29th August 2007, 09:11 AM

So why could this not happen in cultures that practice FGM?

It does change sometimes. Which is why clitorectomies will not be performed by many hospitals, even in those countries where the practice remains prevalant.

What right do you have to impose your morality on them, especially when you condone the abuse of infant males in a similar way to that which they do to girls?

You can't logically believe in universal human rights and cultural relativism.

You can believe in universal human rights and cultural relativism if you place no real value on a foreskin beyond what that culture places on it.

Removing a foreskin is not abuse. Thus I am not condoning abuse of infant males. Removing the clitoral hood is not abuse. Cultures which do so are not abusing females.

Removing the glans or penis or testacles would be abuse. Just as removing the clitoris would be abuse. I condemn both these actions. Cultures which do either are abusing children.

What you're doing is saying an inch=mile. Relativism allows us to have multiple units of measurement.

Did you agree with France's poorly thought out law banning headscarves in school?

Darth Rotor

29th August 2007, 10:07 AM

<trimmed for the sake of neatness>
Linda
Touché :D

Or should that be touchy? :eek:

DR

Ivor the Engineer

29th August 2007, 10:10 AM

You can believe in universal human rights and cultural relativism if you place no real value on a foreskin beyond what that culture places on it.

Removing a foreskin is not abuse. Thus I am not condoning abuse of infant males. Removing the clitoral hood is not abuse. Cultures which do so are not abusing females.

So you're a cultural relativist...

Removing the glans or penis or testacles would be abuse. Just as removing the clitoris would be abuse. I condemn both these actions. Cultures which do either are abusing children.

...but now you're applying the standards of your culture to others. That is not logically consistent.

You are clearly very confused.

What you're doing is saying an inch=mile. Relativism allows us to have multiple units of measurement.

No, what I'm saying is that if you want to use cultural relativism as a defence then you cannot say any other cultures' practices are wrong.

Did you agree with France's poorly thought out law banning headscarves in school?

Adults should be free to wear (or not wear) whatever they want, unless an item of clothing (or lack thereof) is likely to put them or others at significant risk of harm. I.e. eye protection is required while arc-welding.

If a school has a uniform policy, then the children should be wearing it and the teachers enforcing it.

Koshy

29th August 2007, 10:12 AM

An age-change operation?

Linda

Thanks for missing the point.

Ivor the Engineer

29th August 2007, 10:20 AM

Thanks for missing the point.

Linda has to miss the point or she'll be in danger of having to agree with me because my position, or the opposite (which she has already said she does not agree with), are the only two logically consistent ones to take.

Either she thinks it is ok to mutilate an individual male's or female's genitals to a degree depending on the culture they belong to (cultural relativist), or it is not (universal human rights).

So, which is it Linda?

fls

29th August 2007, 12:01 PM

Thanks for missing the point.

You're welcome. I know how touchy you men can be.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

29th August 2007, 12:14 PM

You're welcome. I know how touchy you men can be.

Linda

Sorry, it's PMT: Penis Mutilation Touchiness.

Is there anything we can take to control the mood swings?

Lithrael

29th August 2007, 07:10 PM

Linda has to miss the point or she'll be in danger of having to agree with me because my position, or the opposite (which she has already said she does not agree with), are the only two logically consistent ones to take.

Either she thinks it is ok to mutilate an individual male's or female's genitals to a degree depending on the culture they belong to (cultural relativist), or it is not (universal human rights).

So, which is it Linda?

I'm agreeing with Linda on this part. I don't think it's a position that's unreasonable to hold. Both the absolute and the relative can be taken into account in the overall opinion. And you're not letting her hold the actual position she has taken, either. It was very clear and I agree with it.

You are right that FGM is seen as a rite of passage, feminization the same way ritual circumcision is masculinization. The part you keep ignoring is that in those societies the men get all the power, and the women get all the chores. The ONLY reason women in the West have been able to get a fairer deal is because the men, because of their culture, have been more receptive to the idea of women wanting more freedoms, and the women, because of their culture, have been more willing to embrace those freedoms, and because the culture itself has been flexible enough to allow people with modern and traditional ideas about what's right to live side by side.

Thing weren't going so very differently in Iran before the religious extremists took over. Everyone with more liberal feelings got out, if they could. There's no fighting the sort of attitude they have there. In the US if a factory full of people burned to death because of chained up doors there'd be an unrestrained outcry. In Iran if students burned to death because the girls couldn't go outside without their burkas there'd be people arguing that that was totally the right thing to do.

Why do women support their own subjugation in these cultures? Same sort of reason fundamentalists support their own sexual repression. They need to believe it. Only these women have no choice, they can't get out. If they couldn't accept and feel they had a proper place in their cultural situation they'd go nuts. Only the people who have the resources to live without their society's approval can do anything about it at all.

The evidence and tesimony I have read and heard does not support the idea that happily circumcised men consider their johnsons to ba A-OK because they need to believe it.

I am much less interested in fighting FGM not because I consider it OK but because it is part of a culture that is NOT interested in change. I am much more interested in campaigning against routine male circumcision not because I consider it a hideous atrocity but because it's practically an afterthought, a candles-on-birthday-cake type tradition that could easily be changed with a little convincing.

fls

29th August 2007, 08:01 PM

In the US if a factory full of people burned to death because of chained up doors there'd be an unrestrained outcry.

Were you thinking of the Triangle Factory Fire (http://www.laborarts.org/exhibits/union/triangle.cfm)?

Linda

Morchella

29th August 2007, 09:23 PM

I don't have the time to read this whole thread . I am a witness to about a hundred infant circumcisions. It was about 35 years ago when I was a corpsman in the army working in the hospital at Ft Stewart Georgia.
To prep the 2 day old infant I would strap him to the "circ" board. The circ board was a molded plastic cradle that had velcro straps to restrain the arms and legs of the infant. One size fits all. The doctor would probe under the foreskin with hemostats to loosen the skin and then clamp the forceps. There was always a scream from the infant from the pain after the clamp was applied. The doctor then applied a small bell shaped cap under the foreskin and tied a string around the bell in the provided groove. By now the baby is screaming bloody murder. No anesthesia was ever used. The doctor then cut with scissors around the bell just above the string and removed the foreskin. One of the nurses aids saved all the foreskins and claimed they made the best fish bait.
I miss my prepuce. I am so glad there is infantile amnesia because I would not want to remember my own circumcision. It must have hurt like hell. I know now that that ring around my penis is scar tissue.
I don't know what it would be like to have a prepuce. Most women I have talked to prefer a circumcised male. That fact may be a large part of the social pressure to be circumcised.
I can say that I don't care much for the taste and smell of smegma under labia. That might be a reason for the female objections of uncircumcised males.
A a curious aside, I always shared a bath with my younger brother when I was a boy. His penis was split from the urethra halfway through the glans. I now know how that happened. When the doctor applied the hemostats he accidentally inserted it into the urethra before he clamped down thus splitting the glans. Now that had to really hurt.

Koshy

29th August 2007, 10:58 PM

When the doctor applied the hemostats he accidentally inserted it into the urethra before he clamped down thus splitting the glans. Now that had to really hurt.

Thats the funny thing about being deformed from a procedure that never had a reason to have been done in the first place. Bet hes had a fun life.

Depressing story, not that I havnt seen things like this or worse.

Ivor the Engineer

30th August 2007, 02:14 AM

I'm agreeing with Linda on this part. I don't think it's a position that's unreasonable to hold. Both the absolute and the relative can be taken into account in the overall opinion. And you're not letting her hold the actual position she has taken, either. It was very clear and I agree with it.

How can you hold both absolute and relative opinions at the same time?

How is Linda’s position, of believing non-therapeutic male child circumcision is wrong for her sons and boys in her care (good:)), but not for someone else (bad:(), while at the same time believing non-therapeutic female circumcision is wrong for every female on the planet (good:)), consistent?

What’s ironic is that she attempts to convince the likes of Rodney that his beliefs are irrational, who (to my knowledge) harms nobody, but then has a go at me for attempting to do the same to LossLeader, who in a few weeks will be having a large chunk of flesh cut off his newborn child’s penis because of his irrational beliefs!

You are right that FGM is seen as a rite of passage, feminization the same way ritual circumcision is masculinization. The part you keep ignoring is that in those societies the men get all the power, and the women get all the chores. The ONLY reason women in the West have been able to get a fairer deal is because the men, because of their culture, have been more receptive to the idea of women wanting more freedoms, and the women, because of their culture, have been more willing to embrace those freedoms, and because the culture itself has been flexible enough to allow people with modern and traditional ideas about what's right to live side by side.

Do the men get all the power? Are you sure about that? Even if they do, why is that not just different as opposed to wrong? What yardstick are you using to determine that a society organised that way is wrong? Are you saying they are inferior in some respect to your own culture?

If FGM was that harmful, wouldn’t cultures that practice it quickly die out?

Thing weren't going so very differently in Iran before the religious extremists took over. Everyone with more liberal feelings got out, if they could. There's no fighting the sort of attitude they have there. In the US if a factory full of people burned to death because of chained up doors there'd be an unrestrained outcry. In Iran if students burned to death because the girls couldn't go outside without their burkas there'd be people arguing that that was totally the right thing to do.

If you believe in cultural relativism then it is possible it would be the right thing to do. If you believe all humans should have fundamental rights, including the right to life, then no, it would not be the right thing to do.

Which are you? A cultural relativist or believer in fundamental human rights, including the right to bodily integrity?

There is no rational middle ground to take.

Why do women support their own subjugation in these cultures? Same sort of reason fundamentalists support their own sexual repression. They need to believe it. Only these women have no choice, they can't get out. If they couldn't accept and feel they had a proper place in their cultural situation they'd go nuts. Only the people who have the resources to live without their society's approval can do anything about it at all.

The evidence and tesimony I have read and heard does not support the idea that happily circumcised men consider their johnsons to ba A-OK because they need to believe it.

So you don’t think the resistance to stopping infant male circumcision displayed in this thread has anything to with American parents’ and circumcised men’s “need to believe” that what they have left down there is the same or better somehow?

The message: “I’ve lost a huge chunk of erogenous tissue from my primary sex organ and I don’t think my sexual pleasure has been negatively affected”, from most of the circumcised men posting in this thread sounds exactly like that of a deluded individual who “needs to believe” to me.

Look how long it took to convince American physicians that circumcisions on infants are extremely painful. They managed to ignore all the obvious signs that the child was in distress or shock, claiming that babies could not feel pain or the baby was sleeping!

I am much less interested in fighting FGM not because I consider it OK but because it is part of a culture that is NOT interested in change. I am much more interested in campaigning against routine male circumcision not because I consider it a hideous atrocity but because it's practically an afterthought, a candles-on-birthday-cake type tradition that could easily be changed with a little convincing.

After 46 pages of this thread and a total lack of will from the physicians posting in it to do anything to discourage parents, I think you’re fooling yourself.

fls

30th August 2007, 03:30 AM

A a curious aside, I always shared a bath with my younger brother when I was a boy. His penis was split from the urethra halfway through the glans. I now know how that happened. When the doctor applied the hemostats he accidentally inserted it into the urethra before he clamped down thus splitting the glans. Now that had to really hurt.

Did you guess that was what happened or did someone tell you? The description sounds like a congenital abnormality called hypospadias with failure of complete fusion.

This gives me the willies - one site mentioned the ancient treatment for more severe hypospadias (the urethral opening is further down the shaft of the penis) was to cut off the penis up to where the opening was.

Linda

Morchella

30th August 2007, 05:42 AM

Did you guess that was what happened or did someone tell you?

Linda

I guessed, and now I regret to say that I am most likely wrong. I was not aware of the congenital abnormality. Sorry for assuming the worst case, that of malpractice.
By the way my brother has a normal life and his condition does not seem to have any effect on his sex life.

Mike

eir_de_scania

30th August 2007, 08:12 AM

This gives me the willies - one site mentioned the ancient treatment for more severe hypospadias (the urethral opening is further down the shaft of the penis) was to cut off the penis up to where the opening was.
Cut or uncut willies?:boxedin:

Koshy

30th August 2007, 03:01 PM

Lithrael

30th August 2007, 07:05 PM

Do the men get all the power? Are you sure about that? Even if they do, why is that not just different as opposed to wrong? What yardstick are you using to determine that a society organised that way is wrong? Are you saying they are inferior in some respect to your own culture?

This is exactly why I say the problem is too sticky for me. I can't judge the culture bad or wrong just for that. But I do judge it wrong for the cruelties it allows against women, and I mean death-and-disfigurement type cruelties, without even getting into the FGM issues. And I do know that putting the lion's share of power in men's hands, and putting so much importance on cultural identity, are the main reasons it's so difficult for things to improve in those cultures.

If FGM was that harmful, wouldn’t cultures that practice it quickly die out?

What culture with harmful (but not deadly) practices has quickly died out? Even stuff like foot-binding, which was certainly disfiguring and debilitating, but seen as a point of pride and beauty by those who practiced it, hasn't even been gone for a whole century yet.

Ivor is very right about relativism. You cant hold some relativistic views while saying that others arnt. Why you say? Well, I can just turn around and say that what you hold to be universal is really relative, because Im a relativist too, thus youre wrong, Im right, youre right, Im wrong.

There cannot be a partially relativistic system, such a system is self contradicting and pointless, as I said some decent number of posts ago, although I called it subjectivism then.

I can't really agree with this. I look at some things relatively and other things universally. Some things in the grey area are pretty much black and others are just... grey. The difference between them is, yes, just subjective gut feeling, and fine, you can call it useless, but until I can find a way to be more certain about my own judgements that's the way I'm going to see things.

ETA: By this I mean there are some greys where I am confident enough to make the ruling inside my own life or culture but not confident enough to make the ruling inside someone else's life or culture.

Universal rights is a much much much better system than relativism. Otherwise everyone can do whatever they want and noones in the right or wrong.

I suspect you are right about this, but I still don't see how I can decide on things I do not feel I can correctly decide on. I'll worry about it more when I'm in a position to influence worldwide laws.

fls

31st August 2007, 03:40 AM

Ivor is very right about relativism. You cant hold some relativistic views while saying that others arnt. Why you say? Well, I can just turn around and say that what you hold to be universal is really relative, because Im a relativist too, thus youre wrong, Im right, youre right, Im wrong.

Exactly. It's all relative. That something is considered universal is really just that it's a relative view most people hold in common.

There cannot be a partially relativistic system, such a system is self contradicting and pointless, as I said some decent number of posts ago, although I called it subjectivism then.

Universal rights is a much much much better system than relativism. Otherwise everyone can do whatever they want and noones in the right or wrong.

Universal rights and relativism are not two different things, but rather two parts of the same system. Since, as you pointed out above, anyone can lay claim to "I'm right and you're wrong", the idea behind universal rights is to give everyone equal ability to make that claim. Your duty, under this system, is to not interfere with anyone else's relativism. Their duty is to not interfere with yours. As society is built on interaction, this idea will always be in conflict. But it does provide a framework for resolving conflict by weighing the relative degree of interference.

Linda

Ivor the Engineer

31st August 2007, 04:42 AM

Exactly. It's all relative. That something is considered universal is really just that it's a relative view most people hold in common.

Wow! That's profound. I wish I'd thought of that:rolleyes:

Universal rights and relativism are not two different things, but rather two parts of the same system. Since, as you pointed out above, anyone can lay claim to "I'm right and you're wrong", the idea behind universal rights is to give everyone equal ability to make that claim. Your duty, under this system, is to not interfere with anyone else's relativism. Their duty is to not interfere with yours. As society is built on interaction, this idea will always be in conflict. But it does provide a framework for resolving conflict by weighing the relative degree of interference.

Linda

Only in your fantasy world, Linda. The idea behind universal human rights was to stop people making ridiculous claims of what is "right" to do to other people. For example:

http://library.thinkquest.org/C0126065/issuniversalism.html

In universalism, an individual is a social unit, possessing inalienable rights, and driven by the pursuit of self interest. In the cultural relativist model, a community is the basic social unit. Concepts such as individualism, freedom of choice, and equality are absent. It is recognized that the community always comes first. This doctrine has been exploited by many states, which decry any impositions of western rights as cultural imperialism. These states ignore that they have adopted the western nation state, and the goal of modernization and economic prosperity. Cultural relativism is in itself a very arbitrary idea, cultures are rarely unified in their viewpoints on different issues, it is always those “who hold the microphone [that] do not agree”(http://www.aasianst.org/Viewpoints/Nathan.htm). Whenever one group denies rights to another group within a culture, it is usually for their own benefit. Therefore human rights cannot be truly universal unless they are not bound to cultural decisions that are often not made unanimously, and thus cannot represent every individual that these rights apply to.

And the few rights that most civilized populations on the planet have agreed to: http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

How can Articles 3 and 5, IN ANY WAY, be interpreted as "relative"?

Ivor the Engineer

31st August 2007, 03:12 PM

A French perspective on the use of male circumcision for tackling HIV infection: http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/07_05_24_rapport_circoncisions_eng.pdf

The current results of studies on male circumcision illustrate the need for supplementary research in order to better define the real impact that male circumcision could have on the epidemic’s dynamics. Within the context of the strategies used in the fight against infection with HIV, the implementation of male circumcision as part of a raft of preventative measures could destabilise health care delivery and at the same time confuse existing prevention messages. Experience has shown that it is extremely difficult to communicate prevention using several means, and the addition of a new ‘tool’ could actually cause a result opposite to that which was originally intended. As the recommendations by the WHO highlight, this strategy is not aimed at countries with low prevalence or where it relates specifically to one part of the population such as in France or the United States52. To date, the WHO has encouraged the start of treatment on as wide a scale as possible and male circumcision should not sway this commitment. Male circumcision must not become a lowercost solution that has a detrimental effect on drug-based treatments in developing countries.

Darth Rotor

31st August 2007, 03:28 PM

A French perspective on the use of male circumcision for tackling HIV infection: http://www.circumcisionandhiv.com/files/07_05_24_rapport_circoncisions_eng.pdf
I am unfamiliar with the costs, or relative costs, of condoms versus circumcision in the HIV prone areas in Africa mentioned here, and waaaaaaay earlier in this thread.

Given the expense of surgical procedures here in America, I can probably acquire a few hundred condoms, maybe a few thousand, condoms for the price of an outpatient circumcision.

With that in mind, I am not sure I understand the comment in that post regarding low cost option, given the odds earlier discussed of transmission paths.

Male circumcision must not become a lowercost solution that has a detrimental effect on drug-based treatments in developing countries.

Can you elaborate?

Or, did I miss a bit, and is the point restricted to the dilemma (false IMO) of Either Drugs OR Circumcision, with condoms left aside? Seems to me circumcision is a behavioral change, not a one to one correspondence for treatment, and so are condom usage behavioral, where drugs are a treatment with, at the moment, a massive price tag (particular in the relative sense in some African nations.)

Of course, someone has doubtless commented on the CT that the drug solution is preferred by the Big Pharmacies since it is a form of corporate welfare for them, etc, but I don't remember that far back into the thread.

DR

Ivor the Engineer

31st August 2007, 03:56 PM

I am unfamiliar with the costs, or relative costs, of condoms versus circumcision in the HIV prone areas in Africa mentioned here, and waaaaaaay earlier in this thread.

Given the expense of surgical procedures here in America, I can probably acquire a few hundred condoms, maybe a few thousand, condoms for the price of an outpatient circumcision.

With that in mind, I am not sure I understand the comment in that post regarding low cost option, given the odds earlier discussed of transmission paths.

Can you elaborate?

Or, did I miss a bit, and is the point restricted to the dilemma (false IMO) of Either Drugs OR Circumcision, with condoms left aside? Seems to me circumcision is a behavioral change, not a one to one correspondence for treatment, and so are condom usage behavioral, where drugs are a treatment with, at the moment, a massive price tag (particular in the relative sense in some African nations.)

Of course, someone has doubtless commented on the CT that the drug solution is preferred by the Big Pharmacies since it is a form of corporate welfare for them, etc, but I don't remember that far back into the thread.

DR

From page 7:

Male circumcision is no substitute for antiretroviral treatments

The strengthening of health care services requested by the WHO is countered by the issue of a crisis in terms of human resources in developing countries41. Medical personnel are already too few and far between to provide the necessary care to the fight against HIV, and it would seem difficult to add the extra burden which would arise from the circumcision of several million men. The same goes for South Africa where, although treatment is more accessible than in other countries, it is estimated that only a third of people needing treatment actually receive it, primarily as a result of a shortfall in medical personnel. Moreover, for the entire fight against the epidemic in 2008, the evaluated available resources will be no more than 10 billion dollars42, whereas the estimated demand for 2008 will be 22 billion dollars43. Added to these anticipated needs would be the extra funding required to facilitate the more widespread implementation of male circumcision44. This cost issue, together with that of human resources, will therefore have a knock-on effect on the priorities to be implemented within the context of health care policies. Antiretroviral treatments, as well as their curative effects, can facilitate a significant reduction in the risks of HIV transmission45. Studies show that, between serodifferent couples, the start of treatment has effected a reduction of between 50% and 85% in the transmission of HIV46. To date, the WHO has encouraged the start of treatment on as wide a scale as possible, a practice propagated by the member states of the United Nations who are committed to universal access to treatment, care and support services by 2010. This programme therefore facilitates the implementation of a network of care, but also a greater reduction in the risk of transmission for the population as a whole compared to male circumcision. The promotion of male circumcision must not become a lower-cost policy in the fight against the epidemic in developing countries to the detriment of access to drugs.